Analyse experiment results

Subject: Onboarding checklist test: Why we should ship Variant B

Team,

Before we write off the 5-step onboarding checklist as a failure, let’s take a closer look at the data. My recommendation is that we ship the shorter checklist immediately rather than rolling it back or extending the test.

What we should conclude "Not statistically significant" doesn't mean the test failed; it just means we didn't hit our ambitious pre-registered 3pp threshold. Looking at the actual numbers, the story is encouraging: * Activation leaned positive: Variant B saw a +1.7pp lift. Looking at the 95% confidence interval (−1.4pp to +4.8pp), the upside potential is much larger than the downside risk. At worst, the shorter checklist performs similarly to the 9-step version; at best, it provides a solid lift. * Less user friction: Support tickets for "onboarding confusion" dropped by a third (from 44 to 29). Even if activation is technically flat, users are clearly having a better experience. * Simpler is better: Cutting four steps reduces UI bloat and future maintenance for our team.

What we should do next We have the option to run the test for another four weeks to detect a 2pp effect, but that isn't a good use of our time. If the true lift is +1.7pp, another month of testing might still yield an "inconclusive" result while tying up our experimentation traffic.

Because Variant B is already built, shipping it to 100% of users will only take a day of engineering time. When a change is low-effort, reduces support volume, simplifies the product, and shows no evidence of harming activation, the default move should be to ship it.

Let’s roll out the 5-step checklist to everyone this week and move on to our next big bet.

Team,

This test is inconclusive, not a failure. Activation increased from 31.2% to 32.9%, but the confidence interval spans a 1.4 percentage-point decline to a 4.8-point improvement. We haven’t established a benefit or ruled out meaningful harm.

The pre-registered 3pp minimum detectable effect describes what we designed the test to detect reliably. It isn’t a threshold below which improvements have no value. A smaller lift could still be worthwhile.

Confusion tickets fell from 44 to 29, which is encouraging supporting evidence. Without comparable rates by experiment arm, consistent tagging and exposure counts, we can’t attribute that reduction to the shorter checklist.

My recommendation is a staged rollout, provided basic checks reveal no downstream harm. With only a day of engineering needed, I wouldn’t automatically spend another four weeks pursuing statistical significance. The remaining decision is whether the likely benefit justifies the remaining cost and risk.

Before rollout, confirm every included user has had the full seven-day activation window and check experiment allocation, tracking and any available downstream engagement measures. Compare confusion-ticket rates between arms.

Then increase exposure gradually, retaining a randomised holdout and agreeing monitoring dates and a rollback threshold upfront. This is a practical decision under uncertainty, not a declaration that B won.

Extend the experiment instead if a possible 1.4pp activation loss is commercially unacceptable¹ or if establishing a roughly 2pp improvement would change our decision. If we extend, pre-specify the analysis and stopping rule; four more weeks offers greater precision, not a guaranteed answer.

Team—

This is inconclusive, not a failure. Activation was 1.7 percentage points higher with the shorter checklist, but the 95% CI (−1.4 to +4.8 points) includes no effect and possible harm—as well as a benefit of at least 3 points. The test wasn’t precise enough to settle the question.

I recommend running the test for another four weeks. That should let us assess effects around 2 points, which this change may plausibly deliver. Before extending, agree on what activation gain would justify rollout and what activation decline would stop it. Track onboarding-confusion tickets too, but compare rates per user: the raw drop from 44 to 29 is encouraging, not conclusive.

After the extension, decide using both activation and confusion—not a “significant/not significant” label alone.