Tasks / Metrics & Experimentation

Experiment specification

Can the model design a test that could actually change the decision?

Task type v1.0 · 2 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

What AI gets right here, and what you’ll still have to catch

From 16 graded outputs by 8 models. 31% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Randomises by user100% pass
    Randomises by logged-in user ID across platforms, explicitly citing cross-platform usage and session non-independence.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Show the fee sooner
  2. Works around the calendar94% pass
    Addresses both the payments test and the Black Friday freeze, proposes concurrent independent assignment with an interaction check, and avoids a one-week squeeze.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Show the fee sooner
  3. Addresses the actual decision91% pass
    Commits to a clear experiment plan with a decision rule that maps every outcome (ship, don't ship, kill, extend) to an action.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Show the fee sooner

Where it slips

  1. Guardrails with thresholds50% pass
    Guardrail metrics are named but lack explicit numeric thresholds; 'materially worse' and 'drops meaningfully' are too vague to block rollout without further definition.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Showing the delivery fee up front
  2. Says why a test is worth it here59% pass
    The output does not explain why this decision merits a test given the traffic and stakes, nor does it recommend a cheaper alternative.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Show the fee sooner
  3. Uses the supplied evidence correctly64% pass
    Unsupported claims about the traffic data's adequacy and the code freeze's preapproval requirement are presented as facts, not in the brief.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Show the fee sooner

How it’s graded

Each check is built on how world-class product and growth leaders do this work, as they’ve described it on Lenny’s Podcast, and names the leader it comes from.

  1. An unambiguous primary metric

    Does the spec name one primary metric, explain why an increase is unambiguously good for the user and the business, and say how the result's trustworthiness will be checked?

    Passes when One primary metric with a clear rationale for its direction, plus a planned trust check such as a sample ratio check.

  2. Decision rule written before the test

    Does the spec say, before the test runs, which result leads to which action (ship, don't ship, iterate), including what happens if the result is inconclusive?

    Passes when Every outcome, including an inconclusive one, maps to a stated action, with the thresholds that separate them.

  3. Sized from the real traffic

    Is the sample size and duration worked out from the supplied traffic, baseline and smallest effect worth detecting, run in full weekly cycles?

    Passes when Sample size follows from the baseline and the smallest effect worth acting on, the duration follows from the traffic the brief gives (including how units accumulate), and it runs whole weeks.

  4. Guardrails with thresholds

    Does the spec name the guardrail metrics that would stop a rollout even if the primary metric wins, each with a threshold?

    Passes when The guardrails that matter for this change are named, each with a threshold that would block the rollout.

  5. Says why a test is worth it here

    Does the spec weigh whether a test is worth running here: enough traffic to detect an effect that matters, and a decision the result would actually change, and does it say what it would do instead if not?

    Passes when Explains why this decision merits a test given the traffic and stakes, or recommends a cheaper route where they don't.

Plus our standard checks

Uses the supplied evidence correctly · Addresses the actual decision · Respects explicit constraints · Identifies material uncertainty · Avoids unsupported claims · Produces the required deliverable · and 3 written for each task, which you’ll see in the tasks below.

The tasks

Read the brief, then compare up to three outputs, each with the LLM judge’s verdict on every check. Highlights mark what a PM had to fix.

The brief

You're the PM for checkout at Waymark. Write the experiment spec for the idea below, in no more than 900 words: hypothesis, what's randomised and how, metrics (primary, secondary, guardrails), sample size and duration worked out from our real traffic, when it can run given the calendar, and the decision rule. Show your sums.\n\nThe files are attached.

What the model was given5 items: About Waymark, the_idea.md, checkout_traffic_last_8_weeks.csv (daily, by platform), who_checks_out.md, experiment_calendar.md
About WaymarkOnline groceries, ordered on the app or the website, delivered the next day.
the_idea.md3 lines · Download
# The idea (from the checkout squad)

Show the delivery date and the delivery fee on the basket page, before checkout, instead of on the final checkout step. Hypothesis: fewer people abandon at the last step when they see the fee, and more complete checkout. Risk: some people may leave earlier when they see the fee sooner.
checkout_traffic_last_8_weeks.csv (daily, by platform)date,weekday,platform,checkout_sessions,orders 2026-08-10,Mon,app,23970,1755 2026-08-10,Mon,web,16794,894 2026-08-11,Tue,app,23130,1691 2026-08-11,Tue,web,17534,943 2026-08-12,Wed,app,23807,1689 2026-08-12,Wed,web,16732,906 2026-08-13,Thu,app,23420,1673 2026-08-13,Thu,web,16871,900 2026-08-14,Fri,app,23082,1664 2026-08-14,Fri,web,17728,943 2026-08-15,Sat,app,15784,1039 2026-08-15,Sat,web,11893,600 2026-08-16,Sun,app,15784,1045 2026-08-16,Sun,web,11908,594 2026-08-17,Mon,app,23929,1725 2026-08-17,Mon,web,17584,947 2026-08-18,Tue,app,23133,1674 2026-08-18,Tue,web,17005,935 2026-08-19,Wed,app,23486,1661 2026-08-19,Wed,web,16706,912 2026-08-20,Thu,app,23242,1641 2026-08-20,Thu,web,17473,937 2026-08-21,Fri,app,23435,1719 2026-08-21,Fri,web,17242,946 2026-08-22,Sat,app,16371,1080 2026-08-22,Sat,web,12039,601 2026-08-23,Sun,app,16578,1081 2026-08-23,Sun,web,12044,602 2026-08-24,Mon,app,23475,1663 2026-08-24,Mon,web,17130,916 2026-08-25,Tue,app,23409,1669 2026-08-25,Tue,web,17304,918 2026-08-26,Wed,app,23406,1671 2026-08-26,Wed,web,17152,912 2026-08-27,Thu,app,23921,1724 2026-08-27,Thu,web,16846,915 2026-08-28,Fri,app,24224,1712 2026-08-28,Fri,web,17541,963 2026-08-29,Sat,app,16489,1113 2026-08-29,Sat,web,11921,602 2026-08-30,Sun,app,16065,1080 2026-08-30,Sun,web,11484,570 2026-08-31,Mon,app,23827,1748 2026-08-31,Mon,web,17352,951 2026-09-01,Tue,app,24029,1751 2026-09-01,Tue,web,16781,901 2026-09-02,Wed,app,24327,1766 2026-09-02,Wed,web,16949,908 2026-09-03,Thu,app,23853,1723 2026-09-03,Thu,web,17094,914 2026-09-04,Fri,app,24099,1745 2026-09-04,Fri,web,17509,960 2026-09-05,Sat,app,16493,1114 2026-09-05,Sat,web,11610,575 2026-09-06,Sun,app,16571,1109 2026-09-06,Sun,web,11899,598 2026-09-07,Mon,app,23179,1696 2026-09-07,Mon,web,16836,897 2026-09-08,Tue,app,23301,1689 2026-09-08,Tue,web,17187,937 2026-09-09,Wed,app,24344,1745 2026-09-09,Wed,web,17418,953 2026-09-10,Thu,app,23256,1691 2026-09-10,Thu,web,17123,933 2026-09-11,Fri,app,23911,1693 2026-09-11,Fri,web,17576,961 2026-09-12,Sat,app,16328,1099 2026-09-12,Sat,web,12082,609 2026-09-13,Sun,app,15784,1051 2026-09-13,Sun,web,11496,565 2026-09-14,Mon,app,23716,1722 2026-09-14,Mon,web,16886,905 2026-09-15,Tue,app,23295,1649 2026-09-15,Tue,web,17506,947 2026-09-16,Wed,app,23514,1717 2026-09-16,Wed,web,17152,934 2026-09-17,Thu,app,23714,1714 2026-09-17,Thu,web,17027,929 2026-09-18,Fri,app,23324,1698 2026-09-18,Fri,web,17233,942 2026-09-19,Sat,app,15792,1055 2026-09-19,Sat,web,11457,566 2026-09-20,Sun,app,15795,1044 2026-09-20,Sun,web,11932,596 2026-09-21,Mon,app,24102,1717 2026-09-21,Mon,web,17386,951 2026-09-22,Tue,app,24071,1722 2026-09-22,Tue,web,17445,940 2026-09-23,Wed,app,23672,1712 2026-09-23,Wed,web,17595,966 2026-09-24,Thu,app,24378,1759 2026-09-24,Thu,web,16705,911 2026-09-25,Fri,app,23375,1654 2026-09-25,Fri,web,16941,928 2026-09-26,Sat,app,15807,1053 2026-09-26,Sat,web,11924,601 2026-09-27,Sun,app,16572,1100 2026-09-27,Sun,web,11745,581 2026-09-28,Mon,app,23731,1685 2026-09-28,Mon,web,17480,960 2026-09-29,Tue,app,23336,1710 2026-09-29,Tue,web,17187,940 2026-09-30,Wed,app,24441,1745 2026-09-30,Wed,web,16799,913 2026-10-01,Thu,app,23404,1705 2026-10-01,Thu,web,17529,945 2026-10-02,Fri,app,24389,1789 2026-10-02,Fri,web,16952,900 2026-10-03,Sat,app,16669,1110 2026-10-03,Sat,web,12041,604 2026-10-04,Sun,app,15998,1077 2026-10-04,Sun,web,12088,593
who_checks_out.md6 lines · Download
# Who checks out (from the data team)

- 412,000 people placed at least one order in the last 30 days.
- 31% of them used both the app and the website to shop in that month.
- The average buyer starts 3.8 checkout sessions a month.
- Average order value: $64. Repeat purchase within 30 days: 38%.
experiment_calendar.md5 lines · Download
# Experiment calendar

- Payments squad: "Pay later" option on the checkout page, live for 50% of users until 9 November.
- Search squad: new ranking, runs on search results pages only, until 30 October.
- Black Friday promotions start 20 November; code freeze from 16 November.
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Randomises by user, not session or platform, because 31% of buyers use both app and web and the average buyer starts 3.8 checkout sessions a month; sessions aren't independent. Uses the traffic file: about 41,000 checkout sessions a weekday and 28,000 at weekends (about 260,000 a week), with session conversion about 6.4% (higher on the app), so sizes on users (about 412,000 buyers a month) with a stated baseline and smallest effect worth detecting, and runs in whole weeks. Primary metric: completed orders per user who reaches the basket (not last-step completion, which the change could flatter by moving drop-off earlier). Guardrails: drop-off at the basket page, delivery fee revenue, average order value. Handles the calendar: the payments test runs on the same checkout until 9 November and the code freeze starts 16 November before Black Friday, so either run alongside payments with independent assignment and check for interaction, or start after the freeze lifts and avoid the promotional weeks; it doesn't squeeze a test into the single week between them. A decision rule for win, loss and inconclusive.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Randomises by session
Task

Staff-level · v1.0

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

Usable with a quick edit14 of 14 checks passed

The spec is complete and actionable; a PM could run it with only the pre-launch data checks already flagged in the document.

Output

Experiment spec: delivery date and fee on the basket page

Hypothesis

Showing the delivery date and fee on the basket page, rather than at the final checkout step, raises the share of basket sessions that end in an order. We expect fewer last-step abandons because the fee is no longer a surprise. The counter-risk is more exits at the basket, so the primary metric must count both.

Randomisation

  • Unit: logged-in user ID, not session or device. 31% of buyers use both app and web, and buyers average 3.8 sessions a month. Session-level assignment would show one person both experiences and make observations non-independent.
  • Split: 50/50 by salted hash of user ID, the same arm on app and web. Users are assigned on first basket view.
  • Independence: use a different salt from the Payments squad's "Pay later" test, so every arm is about 50% Pay-later (see Calendar).
  • Checks: run an A/A check in the week before launch. Run a sample-ratio-mismatch (SRM) test throughout, and pause if p < 0.001.

Metrics

Primary: order conversion = basket-page sessions that end in an order ÷ basket-page sessions, with standard errors clustered by user.

Do not use orders ÷ checkout sessions. If the fee scares people off at the basket, they never become checkout sessions, the denominator shrinks, and the treatment looks better than it is.

Secondary: - Basket→checkout-start rate (expected to fall, and we need to see by how much). - Checkout-start→order rate (the squad's mechanism). - Revenue per basket session. - Orders per user over the window. - Platform split (exploratory only).

Guardrails: - Average order value (AOV, baseline $64): fail if the lower CI bound is below −2% (−$1.28). - Revenue per basket session: fail if significantly negative. - Fee-related support contacts per 1,000 orders. - Basket-page error rate and latency. - 14-day repeat rate among exposed users. The 30-day repeat rate (38%) can't be read in a 3-week test.

Baseline from the traffic file

SessionsOrdersConversion
Week of 10 Aug258,43716,3366.32%
Week of 28 Sep262,04416,6766.36%
  • Weekly sessions are about 260k and daily volumes are stable, so I use p = 6.35%.
  • Platform split: app 57–58% of sessions at about 7.1% conversion; web 42% at about 5.3%.
  • Weekends run at about 65% of weekday volume, so the test must cover whole weeks.

Sample size

  • MDE: +3% relative, which is +0.19pp (6.35% → 6.54%). That is roughly 490 orders a week, or about $31k a week at $64 AOV, which is worth shipping for.
  • Settings: two-sided α = 0.05, power 80%, so (1.96 + 0.84)² = 7.84.
  • Per arm, ignoring clustering: n = 2 × 7.84 × p(1−p) / δ²
  • p(1−p) = 0.0635 × 0.9365 = 0.0595
  • δ = 0.00191, so δ² = 3.63×10⁻⁶
  • n = 0.932 / 3.63×10⁻⁶ ≈ 257k sessions
  • Clustering: users contribute about 2.7 sessions in 3 weeks. I assume an intra-user correlation of 0.2, giving a design effect of 1 + 1.7 × 0.2 ≈ 1.3. That puts the requirement at 257k × 1.3 ≈ 334k sessions per arm.
  • Duration: each arm gets about 130k sessions a week (260k ÷ 2), so 334k ÷ 130k = 2.6 weeks. Run 3 full weeks (21 days), which gives about 390k per arm.
  • For comparison: a 2% MDE needs 578k × 1.3 = 751k per arm, or 5.8 weeks, which the calendar can't fit. A 5% MDE needs 92k × 1.3 = 120k per arm, under 1 week.
  • Subgroups: web alone (42% of traffic) can only detect about 4.6% relative (3% × √(1/0.42)). Platform cuts are exploratory.

Data issues to resolve before launch

  1. Buyer count doesn't match the traffic file. The data team's 412k buyers in 30 days is inconsistent with about 70k orders a month in the file (16.4k a week × 30/7). Their 3.8 sessions per buyer implies about 1.57M sessions, against about 1.11M in the file. I sized from the traffic file. The data team needs to reconcile the two, since the user-level assumptions (the design effect) depend on it.
  2. Check the definition of `checkout_sessions`. I assumed it equals basket-page sessions. If it only counts sessions that reached checkout, the true basket-level baseline is lower and the test is longer. For example, at 4% conversion, n scales by (0.96/0.04) ÷ (0.9365/0.0635) ≈ 1.6×, which is about 4.5 weeks.
  3. Re-run the sums on the real basket-session baseline before launch, and fix the duration then (3 or 4 weeks).

Calendar

  • Black Friday: promotions start 20 Nov and code freeze starts 16 Nov. Promo traffic isn't representative, and anything not shipped by 15 Nov waits until after the freeze.
  • Waiting for Pay later to end (9 Nov) doesn't work. That leaves 10–15 Nov, which is 6 days and not enough.
  • Pay later (until 9 Nov) sits on the checkout page and affects the same outcome, so it can't be ignored. I'll run the test concurrently with an independent split. Each arm then gets about the same Pay-later mix, so the contrast stays unbiased. I'll pre-register a treatment × Pay-later interaction check, and report the effect by Pay-later arm. The Payments squad must freeze their allocation for the duration.
  • Search ranking (until 30 Oct) only touches search results pages. It's balanced by randomisation and needs no action, but I'll note it.
  • Schedule:
  • Build, QA and A/A: 5–11 Oct.
  • Run 12 Oct – 1 Nov (3 weeks).
  • Readout 2–4 Nov, decision before 9 Nov.
  • Ship ramp before the 16 Nov freeze.
  • Buffer: a 4-week run (to 8 Nov) still ends before Pay later does.

Decision rule

This is fixed in advance, with one analysis at the end of the run and no peeking.

  • Ship if the primary lift is positive with the 95% CI excluding 0, and no guardrail fails, and revenue per basket session isn't significantly negative.
  • Do not ship if the CI includes 0. We'd conclude "no detectable effect at +3%". Any wish to ship for fee-transparency reasons is a separate product decision, not an experiment win.
  • Kill if the primary is significantly negative, or if AOV or revenue per basket session breaches its guardrail. Basket exits are the main thing we expect to see here.
  • Extend: only if an outage or traffic shortfall leaves fewer than 334k sessions per arm, up to 28 days. Never extend because the result is "almost significant".
  • Interaction: if the effect differs materially by Pay-later arm, ship only to the configuration that will be live after 9 Nov, and confirm with the Payments squad which one that is.

Grades and run details

Decision model 93 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly20%
  • passAddresses the actual decision69%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints21%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty98%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims50%
  • passProduces the required deliverable60%
  • passRandomises by user100%
  • passWorks around the calendar100%
  • passDoesn't let the metric flatter the change99%
  • passAn unambiguous primary metric87%
  • passDecision rule written before the test99%
  • passSized from the real traffic63%
  • partialGuardrails with thresholds83%
  • passSays why a test is worth it here98%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
64 s
Submitted
6 Oct 2026

Needs more than a quick edit13 of 14 checks passed

The data discrepancy between the CSV and the data team's numbers is unresolved and blocks launch; a PM would need to investigate and reconcile the traffic figures before proceeding.

Output

Experiment spec: delivery date and fee on the basket page

Owner: Checkout PM · Status: Draft. Blocked on one data question (see 0).

0. Data question to resolve before launch

The two sources disagree badly:

  • CSV: about 16,525 orders a week, or about 70,800 per 30 days.
  • Data team: 412,000 people ordered at least once in 30 days, so at least 412,000 orders.
  • Sessions: 412,000 × 3.8 = about 1.57M checkout sessions a month. The CSV shows about 1.12M.

The CSV may cover one region or a subset, or the definitions may differ. I've sized the test on the CSV because it is the conservative figure. If real traffic is about 6× higher, the test still runs the full 4 weeks to cover the weekly cycle. It would simply detect a smaller effect.

1. Hypothesis

Showing the delivery date and fee on the basket page removes the "surprise fee" at the final step. That reduces last-step abandonment and increases orders per shopper.

The counter-risk is that some shoppers leave at the basket instead. The test measures the net effect of both.

2. What's randomised and how

  • Unit: account ID, 50/50. It is not the session. Buyers average 3.8 checkout sessions a month, and 31% use both app and web. Session-level randomisation would show the same person both versions and contaminate the result.
  • Assignment point: first basket-page view in the test window, with the assignment held for the whole test.
  • Logged-out web baskets: use the device cookie, then map to the account at login. Accounts that end up in both arms are excluded, and the rate is reported.
  • Platforms: both, with app and web as pre-registered segments.
  • Run first: a 2-day A/A check for sample-ratio mismatch.

Why the metric can't be "orders ÷ checkout sessions": the treatment changes who starts checkout. People who leave at the basket drop out of the denominator, which would inflate the treatment's rate. The denominator must be fixed at the point of assignment.

3. Metrics

Primary: orders per assigned account during the test window.

Secondary (diagnostic): - Basket → checkout start rate. Expected to fall; this is the risk the squad named. - Final-step abandonment rate. Expected to fall. - Basket → order conversion, split by app and web. - Share of baskets topped up to reach a free-delivery threshold, if one exists.

Guardrails (any breach blocks shipping): - Average order value (baseline $64): no drop of more than 2%. - Delivery-fee revenue per order: no significant drop. Must be explained if it moves. - Basket-page load time (p75): no increase of more than 100 ms. Basket-page error rate: no increase. - Customer contacts about fees or delivery date: no significant increase. - Sample-ratio mismatch: p > 0.001.

Note: the 30-day repeat rate (38%) can't be read inside the window. It becomes a follow-up read 30 days after the test ends.

4. Sample size and duration

Baseline from 8 weeks of CSV data (10 Aug – 4 Oct):

SessionsOrdersConversion
App1,206,53785,5267.09%
Web876,85346,6705.32%
Total2,083,390132,1966.345%
  • Weekly volume is very stable: about 260,424 sessions and 16,525 orders a week.
  • Weekdays run about 40% above weekends, so the test must run whole weeks.

Minimum detectable effect: a 3% relative lift, from 6.345% to 6.535% (+0.190 pp). At current volume that is about 496 orders a week, or about $31.7k a week at $64 average order value.

Calculation (α = 0.05 two-sided, 80% power):

  • n per arm = (1.96 + 0.84)² × [p₁(1−p₁) + p₂(1−p₂)] / d²
  • = 7.84 × (0.05942 + 0.06108) / 0.0019035²
  • = 0.9447 / 3.623×10⁻⁶
  • ≈ 260,750 sessions per arm, or 521,500 in total

Adjusting for repeat users: randomising by account means sessions from the same user are correlated. I've applied a design effect of 1.5 because the true clustering factor is unknown:

  • 521,500 × 1.5 = 782,000 sessions
  • ÷ 260,424 a week = 3.0 weeks

Planned duration: 4 full weeks. The extra week covers uncertainty in the clustering factor. It also leaves enough power for a directional read on app and web separately (each about 0.5–0.6 of total traffic).

The analysis will use account-level orders with variance computed directly from the data, so the 1.5 design effect is not baked into the result.

5. When it can run

Calendar itemConflict?Handling
Search ranking (search results pages, until 30 Oct)No. Different page.Randomised independently. Logged for reference.
Pay later (checkout page, 50% of users, until 9 Nov)Yes. Same funnel, same outcome.Run alongside it with independent randomisation. Treat Pay later as a stratum and check for an interaction (pre-registered).
Code freeze 16 Nov, Black Friday 20 NovYesMust finish before 16 Nov. Promo traffic is atypical.

Waiting until Pay later ends (10 Nov) leaves only 6 days before the freeze, which is too short. So we run alongside it.

Dates: - Build and A/A check: 5–11 Oct. - Test: Mon 12 Oct – Sun 8 Nov. That is exactly 4 weeks. It ends the day before Pay later finishes, so Pay later's 50/50 split is constant for our whole test. - Analysis and ship decision: 9–13 Nov, before the freeze.

6. Decision rule (pre-registered)

1. Ship if the primary lift is positive and significant (p < 0.05), no guardrail is breached, and sample-ratio mismatch passes. 2. Don't ship if: - the primary is significantly negative, or - any guardrail is breached.

Either way, investigate whether the basket-stage drop outweighed the last-step gain. 3. Flat result (confidence interval within ±3%, no guardrail breach): ship only if final-step abandonment fell significantly, on the grounds of transparency. Otherwise keep control. 4. Pay later interaction: if the effect differs significantly between Pay later arms, report the effect within each arm. The ship decision then follows Pay later's own launch decision. 5. No early stopping on the primary metric. A guardrail breach above a pre-set threshold may stop the test early.

Grades and run details

Decision model 93 · LLM judge 87
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly5%
  • passAddresses the actual decision42%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints16%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty89%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims46%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable26%
  • passRandomises by user100%
  • passWorks around the calendar99%
  • passDoesn't let the metric flatter the change94%
  • passAn unambiguous primary metric82%
  • passDecision rule written before the test98%
  • passSized from the real traffic54%
  • passGuardrails with thresholds56%
  • passSays why a test is worth it here75%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
77 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026

Needs more than a quick edit11 of 14 checks passed

Missing trust check for randomisation and guardrail thresholds for several metrics; a PM would need to add those before running the test.

Output

Waymark checkout experiment spec

Hypothesis

Showing the delivery date and fee on the basket page will increase the share of eligible shoppers who place an order by setting expectations earlier and reducing last-step abandonment. It may also cause some shoppers to leave sooner; the primary metric must capture both effects.

Design and randomisation

Randomise eligible shoppers 50:50 when they first view a basket with delivery information available:

  • Control: Current experience; date and fee appear at the final checkout step.
  • Treatment: Date and fee appear on the basket page and remain visible through checkout.

Assign by stable customer ID across app and web, so shoppers who use both platforms see the same variant. Use a persistent anonymous ID for guests and merge it with the account on login. Stratify assignment by platform at first exposure.

Metrics

  • Primary: Order conversion among eligible basket visitors: shoppers placing an order divided by shoppers randomised. This captures both earlier exits and improved final-step completion.
  • Secondary: Checkout-start rate; completion among checkout starters; step-by-step abandonment; time to order; AOV; results by app/web.
  • Guardrails: Basket-to-order conversion must not fall by more than 0.3 percentage points; monitor cancellations, fee-related support contacts, payment failures and site/app errors.

Sample size and duration

The traffic file covers 56 days. Summing its daily rows gives approximately 2.09m checkout sessions and 132k orders:

  • Baseline checkout-session conversion: 132k ÷ 2.09m ≈ 6.3%
  • Average traffic: 2.09m ÷ 56 ≈ 37.3k sessions/day, or 18.65k/arm/day at 50:50.

Power for a 5% relative lift (6.3% to 6.615%), with 80% power and two-sided 5% significance:

\[ n_{\text{per arm}}\approx \frac{2(1.96+0.84)^2(0.063)(0.937)}{(0.00315)^2} \approx 93{,}000 \]

Because shoppers can generate repeated sessions, conservatively inflate by the supplied 3.8 checkout sessions per buyer per month (worst-case design effect, assuming fully correlated sessions):

\[ 93{,}000 \times 3.8 \approx 353{,}000 \text{ sessions/arm} \]

\[ 353{,}000 \div 18{,}650 \approx 18.9 \text{ days} \]

Plan for at least 19 days, including full weeks and weekends, then allow time for order outcomes to mature. This is a provisional calculation: the file reports checkout sessions, not eligible basket visitors, and therefore cannot establish the primary metric’s baseline or power. Before launch, confirm basket-visitor volume and conversion, and validate the repeat-session assumption against deduplicated users. The supplied 412k monthly buyers and session-frequency figures should also be reconciled with observed traffic.

Calendar

Do not run concurrently with Payments’ checkout experiment, which ends 9 November. Starting 10 November would require about 19 days, crossing both the 16 November code freeze and 20 November Black Friday promotions. Defer until those changes and promotions are over and the freeze is lifted; the calendar does not specify those end dates. Confirm a stable window of at least three weeks before scheduling.

Decision rule

Ship only if the primary conversion lift is statistically significant at two-sided p < .05, the 95% confidence interval excludes zero, and the basket-to-order guardrail is not breached. Otherwise, do not ship; investigate platform and funnel-step results before proposing a follow-up. Don’t stop early for a positive result; stop only for a pre-agreed severe guardrail issue or data-quality failure.

Grades and run details

Decision model 82 · LLM judge 73
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly23%
  • passAddresses the actual decision50%
  • passRespects explicit constraints32%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty47%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims46%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable68%
  • passRandomises by user26%
  • passWorks around the calendar94%
  • passDoesn't let the metric flatter the change75%
  • partialAn unambiguous primary metric91%
  • passDecision rule written before the test66%
  • partialSized from the real traffic86%
  • partialGuardrails with thresholds85%
  • partialSays why a test is worth it here53%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
37 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026

Check by check

Where the outputs differ comes first. Open a check to read the judge’s reasons. “Mixed” means the two graders disagreed.

Where they differ 3

An unambiguous primary metricRightRightWrong
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Single primary metric with a clear rationale for its direction, plus planned SRM and A/A trust checks.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

One primary metric (orders per assigned account) with a clear rationale, plus a sample-ratio mismatch check.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Does not include a planned trust check such as a sample ratio mismatch or A/A test to verify randomisation.

Guardrails with thresholdsRightRightWrong
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Names AOV, revenue per basket session, support contacts, error rate, latency, and repeat rate, each with a threshold that would block rollout.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Guardrails (AOV, delivery-fee revenue, page load time, error rate, customer contacts, SRM) each have a threshold that would block rollout.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Only basket-to-order conversion has a threshold; cancellations, support contacts, etc. are listed without thresholds that would block rollout.

Says why a test is worth it hereRightMixedWrong
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Justifies the chosen MDE as worth shipping and checks feasibility against the calendar, implying the test is worth running.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The output does not explain why this decision merits a test given the traffic and stakes, nor does it recommend a cheaper alternative.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Does not explain why this decision merits a test given the traffic and stakes, nor suggest a cheaper alternative.

All got right 11

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

All factual claims about the current situation are taken directly from the supplied context or derived correctly by arithmetic.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

All factual claims about the current situation are taken directly from the supplied context or derived by arithmetic from it.

GPT-6 Luna · API

All factual claims are directly from the supplied context or derived by correct arithmetic.

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Commits to a clear experiment plan with a decision rule that maps every outcome (ship, don't ship, kill, extend) to an action.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Commits to a clear plan (run alongside Pay later, 4 weeks, ship if primary positive and guardrails clear) and states what would change the call.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The spec commits to a clear decision rule for shipping based on test results, framed for the PM.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

The spec is within 900 words and addresses all required elements of an experiment spec.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The output is an experiment spec within 900 words, addresses the brief, and respects the form.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output is an experiment spec under 900 words, covering all requested elements.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Identifies material uncertainties (data inconsistency, definition of checkout_sessions, interaction with Pay later) and says how to resolve them.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names the data discrepancy as a material unknown, flags the design effect assumption, and says how the interaction with Pay later will be handled.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It identifies unknowns (basket visitor baseline, repeat-session assumption, calendar end dates) and says how to resolve them.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Assumptions are clearly labelled, and the hypothesis is presented as a hypothesis, not a fact.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., design effect, possible CSV subset) are clearly labelled as such.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Hypotheses and provisional calculations are clearly labelled, no unsupported factual claims.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Complete experiment spec in the requested format, within the word limit, and usable as-is.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Complete experiment spec with hypothesis, randomisation, metrics, sizing, calendar, and decision rule; a PM could act on it after resolving the data question.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The spec includes hypothesis, randomisation, metrics, sample size with sums, calendar, and decision rule, usable as is.

Randomises by userRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Randomises by logged-in user ID across platforms, explicitly citing cross-platform usage and session non-independence.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Randomises by account ID, explains that 31% use both platforms and 3.8 sessions/month make sessions non-independent.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Randomises by stable customer ID across app and web, giving the cross-platform consistency reason.

Works around the calendarRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Addresses both the payments test and the Black Friday freeze, proposes concurrent independent assignment with an interaction check, and avoids a one-week squeeze.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names both the Pay later test (until 9 Nov) and the code freeze (16 Nov), and chooses to run alongside Pay later with independent assignment and interaction check, not a one-week squeeze.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Names both the payments test and code freeze, and defers until after promotions, avoiding a one-week squeeze.

Doesn't let the metric flatter the changeRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Primary metric is orders per basket session, not per checkout session, with a clear explanation and a basket drop-off guardrail.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Primary metric is orders per assigned account (denominator fixed at basket view), with a guardrail on basket-to-checkout start rate to catch earlier drop-off.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Primary metric is orders per basket visitor, capturing both earlier exits and improved completion, with a basket drop-off guardrail.

Decision rule written before the testRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Specifies ship, do not ship, kill, and extend conditions with explicit thresholds, including the inconclusive case.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Pre-registered rule maps ship, don't ship, flat result, and Pay later interaction to specific actions, with thresholds.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Maps win, loss, and inconclusive outcomes to actions with clear thresholds (p<.05, CI excludes zero, guardrail not breached).

Sized from the real trafficRightRightRight
Sonnet 5.5 · API

Sample size derived from the traffic file baseline and a stated MDE, adjusted for clustering, with duration in whole weeks.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Sample size calculated from CSV baseline (6.345% conversion, 3% relative MDE), adjusted for clustering, and duration set to 4 whole weeks based on weekly traffic.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Sample size derived from traffic file baseline and 5% relative lift, inflated for repeat sessions, runs whole weeks.

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task type, across all its tasks and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Calibrated. Where our PM checked the graders by hand, they agreed on 85% of 39 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1Sonnet 5.5withAPI92.696.42None
2Haiku 5.5withAPI83.496.72None
3Opus 5.5withClaude88.779.02None
4GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT88.976.02None
5GPT-6 LunawithAPI89.165.22None
6GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI83.169.32None
7Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI77.347.92None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini47.813.321 capped

What you get for the cost

No setup scores within 5 points of the leader at half its cost or less here, so the leader is also the best value.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.20304050607080901001×3×10×30×100×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 95, 33× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 89, 2.7× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 81, 49× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 79, 79× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 76, the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 75, 13× the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 60, 7.4× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 29, 2.1× the cheapest, 1 critical failureSonnet 5.5 · APIHaiku 5.5 · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTGPT-6 Luna · APIGPT-6.1 Sol · APIGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Nobody beats these on both score and costAt least one critical failure
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API761.0×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini292.1×
Haiku 5.5 · API892.7×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API607.4×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API7513×
Sonnet 5.5 · API9533×
Opus 5.5 · Claude8149×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT7979×

Cost is each output’s tokens at the model’s list price, shown relative to the cheapest setup. Runs done in an app have no usage meter, so theirs are estimated from the same setup’s measured runs. How we compare cost

About the task

The PM job

Specifying an A/B test before running it.

Why it matters

Most tests are underpowered, or measure a metric nobody agrees is good.

What good looks like

  • One primary metric everyone agrees on the direction of
  • Decision rule stated up front
  • Guardrails
  • Power considered

Deliberately not measured

    Capability tested

    Test design

    The failure we’re looking for

    A test with no decision attached

    Grading

    Decision model and LLM judge, calibrated against a blind PM review