Tasks / Product Craft

Make the launch call

Can the model make a clear go / no-go call from mixed launch evidence, checked against the criteria agreed up front?

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

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

From 18 graded outputs by 9 models. 67% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Produces the required deliverable100% pass
    Provides a complete recommendation with table, reasoning, email plan, and next steps, usable by a product manager with light edits.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Offline, on older phones
  2. Finds the Scotland breach100% pass
    Finds Scotland's refund breach, ties it to the supplier change, notes the acceptance dip, and holds Scotland.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Go/no-go for AI substitutions, from the rollout data
  3. Treats the overwrites as data loss100% pass
    Treats the Android 11 overwrites as a breach of the no-data-loss criterion and makes a fix a condition for that platform.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Offline, on older phones

Where it slips

  1. Judges the launch against a baseline set now51% pass
    Does not name a specific review point or when the team will review results to decide next steps; only gives a pause trigger without a scheduled evaluation.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Offline, on older phones
  2. Checks every criterion for every platform64% pass
    Android 13's error-free sync is 98.9%, below the 99% threshold, yet the table marks it as 'GO WITH CONDITIONS' instead of 'NO-GO' for that criterion, misapplying the hard launch criteria.
    Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini · Offline, on older phones
  3. Gets the base of every number right67% pass
    The 80.5% user base proportion is miscalculated; correct proportion from the data is 79.5%.
    Gemini 4 Argon · API · Offline, on older phones

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. Limits the downside of being wrong

    Does the call say how exposure is limited if it's wrong: what is watched after launch, the threshold that would pause or roll back, and which parts can't be undone?

    Passes when Names the post-launch signal, a threshold or trigger, and the action, and flags anything irreversible (customer communications, pricing, migrations).

  2. Judges the launch against a baseline set now

    Does the call name the metric and the current baseline the launch will be judged against, and when the team will review the result to decide what's next?

    Passes when Names the success metric, its baseline from the material, and a review point with what each result would lead to.

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 · Gets the base of every number right · and 5 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 Staff PM for fulfilment at Basketful. On 30 October the launch meeting decides whether AI auto-substitutions (the model picks a replacement when an item is out of stock, instead of the picker) roll out to every region on Monday 2 November, ahead of the Christmas delivery-slot booking window that opens on 9 November. The rollout workbook is attached as two files: daily_metrics.csv (28 days of the regional test, by region and arm) and incidents.csv. Work from the data, not the summaries people have given you. Write your recommendation for the meeting: go, no-go or go with conditions, region by region, and why. Include a table that checks each launch criterion for each region with the figures. Keep the prose under 900 words.

What the model was given6 items: The test, Launch criteria (agreed in the PRD), What people have said, Engineering, daily_metrics.csv, incidents.csv
The test1–28 October, five regions. In each region orders were split between control (the picker chooses substitutes, as today) and treatment (AI auto-substitutions). The split was not 50/50 everywhere: treatment got 30% of orders in London, 50% in the South East and North West, and 70% in the Midlands and Scotland.
Launch criteria (agreed in the PRD)1. Substitution acceptance (subs_accepted ÷ subs_offered) of at least 80% in treatment, in every region. 2. Refund requests per 1,000 orders in treatment no more than 10% above control, in every region. 3. Zero dietary or allergen mismatches (a substitute that breaks a gluten-free, vegan, vegetarian, nut-free, halal or kosher attribute). 4. Average basket value not lower in treatment than control.
What people have saidHead of Commercial: “Acceptance is up 15 points and refunds are within the guardrail overall. Every day we wait costs us Christmas.” Head of Analytics: “Treatment baskets are £4 smaller across the test. That worries me.” Ops director (Scotland): “The supplier change caused some noise, but it's settling down.”
EngineeringThe dietary-attribute hard filter (never substitute across those attributes) is merged and scheduled to deploy on 4 November after regression tests. Scotland's catalogue re-map for the new dairy supplier is in progress with no date. Rollout can be switched on region by region.
daily_metrics.csv283 rows · Download
date,region,arm,orders,items_ordered,items_out_of_stock,subs_offered,subs_accepted,refund_requests,refund_value_gbp,complaints,avg_basket_gbp
2026-10-01,London,control,1757,52273,2351,1953,1387,32,160.71,6,72.89
2026-10-01,London,treatment,692,20455,871,820,708,12,62.05,2,72.42
2026-10-01,South East,control,853,22846,996,833,593,16,74.49,3,65.62
2026-10-01,South East,treatment,928,25223,1166,1106,952,15,75.93,3,66.59
2026-10-01,Midlands,control,467,10468,465,383,268,8,34.57,1,54.92
2026-10-01,Midlands,treatment,1113,25136,1166,1087,947,21,106.35,3,55.33
…
incidents.csv13 rows · Download
date,region,arm,type,severity,summary,status
2026-10-02,London,treatment,wrong_size,low,"4-pint milk substituted with 1-pint, customer accepted at door",closed
2026-10-04,Midlands,treatment,dietary_mismatch,high,"Gluten-free sliced loaf substituted with standard white loaf; customer coeliac, noticed at home",closed: refund and apology
2026-10-06,South East,control,wrong_item,low,"Picker substituted oat milk with soya milk; customer rejected at door",closed
2026-10-07,North West,treatment,data_export,low,"Daily export job re-ran after a timeout on 8, 9 and 10 Oct; analytics team flagged possible duplicate rows",open
2026-10-09,London,treatment,price,medium,"Substitute priced higher than original; customer charged the difference against policy",closed: policy fix deployed 11 Oct
2026-10-12,Scotland,control,late_delivery,low,"Van breakdown, 14 orders late",closed
…
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

No-go for a national launch on 2 November, because criterion 3 fails everywhere until the dietary hard filter ships: incidents.csv has three treatment dietary mismatches (4 Oct Midlands, 19 Oct South East, 23 Oct London, the last involving nuts and a child with an allergy). Go with conditions, region by region, once the filter is deployed and verified (planned 4 November, still before the 9 November booking window): London, South East, Midlands and North West pass the other criteria (acceptance about 86% against 71% control; refunds 2–5% below control). Hold Scotland: over the month its treatment refunds are about 66% above control, and from the 15 October supplier change about 143% above (43 against 18 per 1,000 orders), with acceptance falling to about 79%, below the 80% bar; it waits for the catalogue re-map and a clean re-test. The pooled refund rate (about 8% above control) hides this, and the criterion is per region. The pooled basket gap (about £65 against £61) is an artefact of the uneven split, since treatment baskets are equal or higher in every region (Simpson's paradox), so criterion 4 passes. Notices that North West treatment rows for 8–10 October are duplicated (an extra 2,194 orders), removes them, and says it doesn't change the result. States what would change the call: the filter slipping past 9 November, or Scotland's refunds not recovering.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Recommends any rollout before the dietary hard filter is deployed
  • Recommends rolling out to Scotland while its refund guardrail is breached
Task

Staff-level · v1.13

The outputs

9 setups answered this brief.

Needs more than a quick edit10 of 14 checks passed

While the core analysis and regional decisions are solid and well-supported, the output misses a post-launch monitoring plan (signal, threshold, trigger for rollback) and a defined success baseline with a review point, which a PM would need to add before taking this to a launch meeting.

Output

Executive Recommendation

  • Monday, 2 November: NO-GO across all regions. We cannot launch while failing Criterion 3 (zero dietary/allergen mismatches). During the test, the AI model caused three high-severity safety incidents—substituting standard bread for gluten-free (coeliac customer), dairy cheese for vegan, and hazelnut bars for nut-free (child with nut allergy). The engineering hard filter to prevent cross-attribute substitution does not deploy until Wednesday, 4 November. A 48-hour delay is non-negotiable for customer safety.
  • Thursday, 5 November: GO WITH CONDITIONS for London, South East, Midlands, and North West. Once the dietary hard filter is deployed on 4 November and verified in production, these four regions pass all launch criteria and can roll out to 100% four days ahead of the 9 November Christmas booking window.
  • Scotland: NO-GO indefinitely. Keep Scotland on 100% picker-led control until the dairy catalogue re-map is completed and verified via a clean 7-day re-test.

---

Data Hygiene & Addressing Stakeholder Summaries

Before reviewing the criteria table, we must correct three data misconceptions circulating ahead of this meeting:

  1. Duplicate Rows (North West): As flagged in `incidents.csv` (7 Oct), an export timeout duplicated North West treatment rows on 8, 9, and 10 October. All figures below are deduplicated (removing 2,194 phantom orders). Note: Criterion conclusions for North West hold either way, though deduplicating slightly raises its refund rate from 17.56 to 17.59 per 1,000.
  2. The "£4 Basket Drop" is Simpson’s Paradox (Head of Analytics): Pooled across the test, treatment average basket value (£60.15) is indeed £3.93 lower than control (£64.08). However, this is a mathematical artefact of our unequal regional split: we allocated 70% of orders to treatment in our lowest-basket regions (Scotland £53, Midlands £55) and only 30% in our highest-basket region (London £72). Evaluated region-by-region, treatment basket value is higher than control in every single region.
  3. Pooled Refunds Mask Scotland's Failure (Head of Commercial): Pooled refund requests look acceptable (+4.5% vs. a +10% guardrail) only because the four English regions saw refund reductions (-1.5% to -7.8%). This masks a +78.3% refund explosion in Scotland. Furthermore, commercial urgency does not require a 2 November launch; launching on 5 November still captures the entire Christmas booking window opening 9 November.

---

Launch Criteria Performance by Region (1–28 Oct, Deduplicated)

Region (Trt Split)C1: Sub Acceptance (Target: ≥80.0%)C2: Refunds / 1k Orders (Target: ≤ +10.0% vs Ctrl)C3: Dietary / Allergen Mismatches (Target: 0)C4: Avg Basket Value (Target: Trt ≥ Ctrl)2 Nov Decision5 Nov Decision (Post-Filter)
:---:---:---:---:---:---:---
London (30%)86.78% (23,314 / 26,866) Ctrl: 70.85% \PASS17.46 vs 18.21 Ctrl (-4.1%) 369/21,136 vs 890/48,874 \PASS1 High (23 Oct: Nut allergy) FAIL£72.64 vs £72.49 (+£0.15) Simple: £72.65 vs £72.49 \PASSNO-GOGO
South East (50%)86.37% (26,548 / 30,735) Ctrl: 70.69% \PASS17.27 vs 17.85 Ctrl (-3.3%) 462/26,756 vs 473/26,498 \PASS1 High (19 Oct: Vegan/dairy) FAIL£66.64 vs £66.26 (+£0.38) Simple: £66.66 vs £66.27 \PASSNO-GOGO
Midlands (70%)86.33% (26,669 / 30,891) Ctrl: 70.89% \PASS17.56 vs 17.83 Ctrl (-1.5%) 544/30,975 vs 231/12,953 \PASS1 High (4 Oct: Coeliac/gluten) FAIL£55.68 vs £55.39 (+£0.29) Simple: £55.66 vs £55.39 \PASSNO-GOGO
North West (50%)*86.52% (18,327 / 21,182) Ctrl: 71.36% \PASS17.59 vs 19.08 Ctrl (-7.8%) 363/20,636 vs 391/20,487 \PASS0 Incidents (System risk open) CONDITIONAL£57.52 vs £57.33 (+£0.19) Simple: £57.53 vs £57.32 \PASSNO-GOGO
Scotland (70%)82.45% (14,508 / 17,596) Ctrl: 71.15% \PASS* (78.7% post-15 Oct)31.71 vs 17.79 Ctrl (+78.3%) 579/18,257 vs 140/7,871 \FAIL0 Incidents (System risk open) CONDITIONAL£52.97 vs £52.66 (+£0.31) Simple: £52.96 vs £52.65 \PASSNO-GONO-GO
Pooled Total (Distorted)85.99% vs 70.91% Ctrl (+15.08 pp)19.68 vs 18.23 Ctrl (+7.9% dedup / +4.5% raw)3 High-Severity Incidents£60.15 vs £64.08 Ctrl (-£3.93 Simpson's Paradox)NO-GOPARTIAL GO

\Note: North West metrics reflect deduplicated data (raw orders: 22,830; raw refunds/1k: 17.56; raw weighted basket: £57.50). Basket values show order-weighted averages first, with simple daily averages in italics.*

---

Regional Rationale & Conditions

#### 1. London, South East, Midlands, and North West: Hold for 4 Nov Filter, Launch 5 Nov In all चार English regions, the underlying AI model outperforms human pickers across every operational metric: * Acceptance: Consistently ~86.5% across all four regions (+15.5 points over control), well above the 80% threshold. * Refunds: Lower than control in every region (ranging from -1.5% in the Midlands to -7.8% in the North West). Note that an early pricing bug in London (9 Oct) was patched on 11 Oct without breaching the regional refund guardrail. * Baskets: Up £0.15 to £0.38 per order over control. * The Blocker: Although North West had zero dietary incidents, the model shares the same vulnerability that triggered high-severity incidents in London, South East, and Midlands. Condition: Hold rollout until the dietary hard filter deploys on 4 November, verify zero regression in production, and switch on all four regions on 5 November.

#### 2. Scotland: Hard No-Go (Revert to Control) Contrary to the Ops Director's view that the 15 October dairy supplier change is "settling down," the data shows a severe, ongoing breakdown in the AI's ability to handle the unmapped Scottish catalogue: * days 1–14 (1–14 Oct): Scotland treatment performed in line with England—acceptance was 86.44% (7,976 / 9,227) and refund requests were 17.46 per 1,000 (162 / 9,280), beating control (18.22). * Days 15–28 (15–28 Oct): Following the overnight catalogue import on 14 Oct, treatment acceptance dropped to 78.05% (6,532 / 8,369)—failing Criterion 1—and never recovered (sitting at 77.76% on 28 Oct). Worse, treatment refund requests more than doubled to 46.45 per 1,000 (417 / 8,977, vs. 17.39 in control), driving a +78.3% full-month breach of Criterion 2 and £2,664 in excess refund value over those two weeks. Meanwhile, human pickers in Scotland control were completely unaffected by the supplier change because they visually inspect pack sizes on the shelf. * Condition for Scotland: Revert Scotland to 100% human picker control immediately. Do not re-enable AI substitutions until Engineering and Ops complete the dairy catalogue re-map and achieve ≥80% acceptance and ≤+10% refunds over a 7-day validation window.

Grades and run details

Decision model 68 · LLM judge 80
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly22%
  • passAddresses the actual decision55%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints40%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty88%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims31%
  • passProduces the required deliverable52%
  • passChecks every criterion, region by region58%
  • passFinds the Scotland breach100%
  • passExplains the basket gap100%
  • passCatches the duplicate rows100%
  • passMakes a clear call33%
  • partialLimits the downside of being wrong23%
  • failGets the base of every number right48%
  • failJudges the launch against a baseline set now22%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
23 s
Submitted
13 Oct 2026

Usable with a quick edit11 of 14 checks passed

The output is clear, complete, and actionable. The minor unsupported phrasing about 'luck' could be edited out without re-checking evidence or reasoning.

Output

AI auto-substitutions: launch recommendation

Oct 29, 2026 · @Martin Slaney · For the 30 October launch meeting

Recommendation

No-go for Monday 2 November in any region. The dietary hard filter isn't live until 4 November, and the test produced three allergen and dietary mismatches.

Go with conditions for London, South East, Midlands and North West from Thursday 5 November, once the filter is live and verified. That is still four days before the Christmas booking window opens on 9 November.

No-go for Scotland until the dairy catalogue re-map ships and a fresh week of test data passes the criteria.

Launch criteria by region

Figures are for 1–28 October from daily\_metrics.csv, with duplicate rows removed. T = treatment, C = control.

Region1. Acceptance (T), ≥80%2. Refunds per 1k orders, T vs C, ≤+10%3. Dietary mismatches (T), 04. Avg basket, T vs CVerdict
London86.7% ✅17.4 vs 18.0 (−3%) ✅1: nut-free to hazelnut, 23 Oct, still open ❌£72.70 vs £72.49 ✅Go 5 Nov, after filter
South East86.4% ✅17.5 vs 17.9 (−2%) ✅1: vegan to dairy, 19 Oct ❌£66.64 vs £66.20 ✅Go 5 Nov, after filter
Midlands86.4% ✅17.5 vs 17.9 (−2%) ✅1: gluten-free to standard, 4 Oct ❌£55.66 vs £55.35 ✅Go 5 Nov, after filter
North West86.3% ✅17.6 vs 18.5 (−5%) ✅0 ✅ (same model, so not evidence of safety)£57.51 vs £57.29 ✅Go 5 Nov, after filter
Scotland82.8% overall; 79.1% since 15 Oct ❌30.2 vs 18.2 (+66%); since 15 Oct 43.2 vs 17.8 (+143%) ❌0 ✅£52.98 vs £52.62 ✅No-go until re-map and re-test

Why not 2 November

Criterion 3 requires zero dietary or allergen mismatches. Treatment had three, all rated high severity: a gluten-free loaf swapped for a standard one (the customer is coeliac), vegan cheese swapped for dairy cheddar (the customer complained on social media), and a nut-free multipack swapped for one containing hazelnuts, sent to a child with a nut allergy. The nut incident is still open. Control had none.

The fix is the dietary hard filter, which is merged and deploys on 4 November after regression tests. Launching on 2 November would put every order in every region onto the unfiltered model for two days. North West's zero is luck, because it runs the same model.

Strictly, all four "go" regions fail criterion 3 as it's written. I'm asking the meeting to accept the filter as the remedy, on condition that we show it would have blocked all three incidents. If the meeting won't accept that, the honest answer is no-go everywhere.

Waiting three days costs nothing for Christmas, because bookings don't open until 9 November.

What the summaries get wrong

Head of Commercial: "refunds within the guardrail overall." Pooled, treatment refunds are 7.9% above control (19.5 vs 18.1 per 1,000 orders), which is inside 10%. But the criterion applies to every region, and the pooled figure hides Scotland at +66%. In the other four regions, treatment refunds are below control. The 15-point acceptance lift is real in those four regions (+15.0 to +15.4 points). In Scotland it's +11.7 overall and falling.

Head of Analytics: "treatment baskets are £4 smaller." Pooled, the gap is £61.09 vs £65.15, but it comes from how orders were split, not from the feature. Treatment got 70% of orders in Midlands and Scotland, which have the smallest baskets (£52–56), and only 30% in London, which has the largest (£72). Within every region, treatment baskets are £0.21–£0.44 larger, so criterion 4 passes everywhere.

Ops director, Scotland: "it's settling down." It isn't. Before the supplier switch on 15 October, Scotland's treatment arm matched the other regions (86.3% acceptance, 17.3 refunds per 1,000 vs 18.6 in control). Since then, treatment refunds have run at 25–33 a day with no downward trend: 28.1 a day on average from 15 to 21 October and 28.7 from 22 to 28 October. Refund value per order has tripled, from £0.09 to £0.30. Scotland's control arm is unaffected at 17.8 per 1,000. So the problem is specific to the model reading a mis-mapped catalogue: pickers can see the real pack sizes, and the model can't. The re-map has no date.

Data quality

The North West treatment rows for 8, 9 and 10 October each appear twice, because the export job re-ran (the open incident from 7 October). I removed the duplicates. They don't change any verdict: North West acceptance moves from 86.2% to 86.3%.

Conditions for the 5 November go

  1. The dietary filter deploys on 4 November and passes regression tests. We replay the three incident orders and confirm the filter blocks each of them.2
  2. The London nut-allergen incident is closed with a root cause.
  3. We switch on region by region and keep a 10% control holdout in each region through Christmas, so criteria 2 and 4 stay measurable.
  4. Kill switch: any single dietary or allergen mismatch turns the region off, as does a treatment refund rate more than 10% above its holdout over a rolling 3 days.1
  5. Scotland: ship the catalogue re-map, then run 7 days of test and re-check the criteria. If it can't be ready by 9 November, Scotland takes Christmas orders with picker substitutions.

What a PM had to fix

  1. 1Test or gate too weakTighten the testQuick edit

    What we’d changeSet the refund trigger outside day-to-day noise, with a bigger gap or a longer window, or it will switch regions off for no reason.

  2. 2Test or gate too weakTighten the testQuick edit

    What we’d changeThree replays is thin evidence the filter works. Test it across every protected attribute, including missing or conflicting ones.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • North West's zero dietary mismatches is luck, because it runs the same model

Grades and run details

Decision model 82 · LLM judge 93
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly6%
  • passAddresses the actual decision80%
  • passRespects explicit constraints37%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims35%
  • passProduces the required deliverable79%
  • passChecks every criterion, region by region55%
  • passFinds the Scotland breach100%
  • passExplains the basket gap98%
  • passCatches the duplicate rows100%
  • passMakes a clear call95%
  • passLimits the downside of being wrong100%
  • failGets the base of every number right41%
  • passJudges the launch against a baseline set now35%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
2.6 min
Submitted
25 Sept 2026

Usable with a quick edit11 of 14 checks passed

The core recommendation, evidence, and region-by-region logic are solid. A PM could add a monitoring threshold and review date with a quick edit without redoing any analysis.

Output

Recommendation: No-go for the all-region rollout on 2 November

Do not enable auto-substitutions anywhere on 2 November: the dietary hard filter is not scheduled to deploy until 4 November, so the zero-mismatch safety criterion is not yet protected. After deployment and validation, North West is the only region I’d consider enabling first, with conditions. Hold the other regions for the reasons below.

Figures are for 1–28 October; refund rates are per 1,000 orders. Basket averages are order-weighted within each region. I excluded the three exact duplicate North West treatment rows on 8, 9 and 10 October.

RegionTreatment acceptance (≥80%)Refunds / 1,000 orders: treatment vs control (treatment ≤10% higher)Dietary/allergen mismatches (must be zero)Average basket: treatment vs control (must not be lower)Decision
------:---:------:---
London~86% Pass~17.9 vs ~18.4; Pass1; Fail — nut-containing bar substituted for nut-free item~£72.8 vs ~£72.5; PassNo-go
South East~85% Pass~17.8 vs ~17.9; Pass1; Fail — dairy cheese substituted for vegan cheese~£66.6 vs ~£66.3; PassNo-go
Midlands~86% Pass~17.6 vs ~18.0; Pass1; Fail — standard loaf substituted for gluten-free loaf~£55.6 vs ~£55.4; PassNo-go
North West~86% Pass~17.8 vs ~18.8; Pass0 observed; Pass in test~£57.5 vs ~£57.3; PassGo with conditions, after filter validation
Scotland~79% Fail1~29.8 vs ~18.4; Fail — about 62% higher0 observed; Pass in test~£53.0 vs ~£52.6; PassNo-go

Conditions and rationale

  • North West: After the hard filter deploys, pass regression tests across all six protected attributes (gluten-free, vegan, vegetarian, nut-free, halal and kosher); then enable regionally with close monitoring and a rollback switch. The export duplicates should also be fixed or guarded against before relying on daily reporting.
  • London, South East and Midlands: Do not launch until the filter is deployed and the dietary-mismatch failures are investigated and validated as fixed. Their good acceptance, refund and basket figures do not offset a safety-criterion failure.
  • Scotland: Hold until the supplier catalogue re-map is complete and verified, and a fresh test meets both acceptance and refund guardrails. The sharp rise in treatment refunds and lower acceptance coincide with the dairy supplier/catalogue change; the issue is open, with no completion date.

The pooled “£4 smaller” basket claim should not drive this decision: treatment exposure differed by region, and baskets vary substantially by region. Within each region, the treatment average is slightly higher in these data. Likewise, an overall acceptance or refund result cannot override region-level launch gates. The 9 November booking window is important, but it does not justify launching before the safety control is live.

What a PM had to fix

  1. 1Invented evidenceVerify or remove the claimTargeted repair

    What we’d change82.76%: Pass over 1–28 October. However, acceptance fell to 79.08% over 15–28 October after the supplier change, below the launch threshold.

Grades and run details

Decision model 79 · LLM judge 87
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly10%
  • passAddresses the actual decision46%
  • passRespects explicit constraints64%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty76%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims23%
  • passProduces the required deliverable70%
  • passChecks every criterion, region by region34%
  • passFinds the Scotland breach88%
  • passExplains the basket gap85%
  • passCatches the duplicate rows86%
  • partialMakes a clear call66%
  • partialLimits the downside of being wrong91%
  • failGets the base of every number right41%
  • failJudges the launch against a baseline set now33%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
44 s
Submitted
29 Sept 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 4

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedMixedRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Every claim about the current situation is supported by the supplied files (incidents.csv, daily_metrics.csv, provided context) or correct arithmetic based on them.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

All factual statements about the current situation are taken from the brief or derived correctly; the one unsupported claim is an interpretation, not a fact.

GPT-6 Luna · API

All factual claims about the current situation are drawn directly from the supplied data or incidents log, or computed correctly from them.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightWrongRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The Simpson's paradox explanation for the basket gap is presented as a calculated correction, not an unsupported cause, and the 'settling down' quote from Ops Director is appropriately disputed with data showing the opposite.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Presents 'North West's zero is luck, because it runs the same model' as fact without evidence that the model is identical across regions.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Interpretations like the basket gap being a mix artefact are clearly explained with evidence; no unsupported causes or forecasts are presented as fact.

Limits the downside of being wrongWrongRightWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The output specifies pre-launch verification conditions but does not name a post-launch signal, a threshold that would trigger a pause or rollback, or clearly flag any irreversible actions for the four regions set to launch.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Specifies a kill switch (dietary mismatch or refund rate >10% above holdout over 3 days), control holdout, and region-by-region rollout.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It does not name a specific post-launch signal, a threshold that would trigger pause or rollback, or flag any irreversible actions.

Judges the launch against a baseline set nowWrongRightWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The output does not name a specific success metric and its current baseline from the test that the launch will be judged against, nor does it set a post-launch review point with what each result would lead to.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names the success metrics (refund rate, dietary mismatches) and baseline (control holdout), with a continuous kill-switch trigger.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It does not name a success metric with its current baseline, nor a review point with what each result would lead to.

All mixed 1

Gets the base of every number rightMixedMixedMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

All derived figures (acceptance rates, refunds per 1,000, basket values, percentage changes) use correct denominators and arithmetic, with basket values specified as order-weighted.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

All derived figures (acceptance, refunds per 1k, basket differences) are computed correctly from the right denominators.

GPT-6 Luna · API

All rates and percentages are computed with the correct denominators (e.g., refunds per 1,000 orders) and the base is stated where needed.

All got right 9

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The output gives a clear NO-GO for all regions on 2 November, a GO with conditions for four regions on 5 November, and a NO-GO for Scotland, directly addressing the launch meeting's decision and stating what would change each call.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Commits to a clear no-go for 2 Nov, go with conditions for four regions from 5 Nov, and no-go for Scotland, with explicit conditions that would change the call.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output commits to a clear no-go for 2 November, gives a region-by-region call with conditions, and states what would change each decision.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The output is a recommendation for the meeting, includes the required region-by-criteria table with figures, and keeps prose under 900 words.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Prose is under 900 words, includes the required region-by-criterion table, and is addressed to the launch meeting.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output includes the required region-by-region criteria table, stays under 900 words, and addresses the launch meeting audience.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

It identifies the dietary filter deployment date and Scotland's catalogue re-map as key unknowns that hold or change the decision, and specifies a clean 7-day re-test for Scotland to resolve the uncertainty.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names the dietary filter deployment, Scotland re-map date, and London nut incident as unknowns, and states what would change the decision.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It identifies the dietary filter deployment date, the Scotland catalogue re-map with no date, and the duplicate data issue as key unknowns, and says how they would change the call.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The output is a complete, actionable recommendation with a decision table, regional rationale, and conditions, usable for the meeting with no major gaps.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Delivers a complete recommendation with table, conditions, and clear prose usable by the meeting.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The recommendation is complete, in the right form for a launch meeting, and a PM could act on it with light edits.

Checks every criterion, region by regionRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The recommendation tests all four launch criteria (sub acceptance, refunds vs control, dietary mismatches, basket value) region by region in a table with correct figures computed from the files.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Table checks all four criteria for each region with correct figures computed from the files.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The table checks all four launch criteria for each region with figures computed from the files.

Finds the Scotland breachRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

It identifies Scotland's refund breach (+78.3%), ties the sharp decline to the 15 October supplier change with pre/post metrics, notes the acceptance dip below 80%, and recommends holding Scotland.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Identifies Scotland's refund breach, ties it to the 15 Oct supplier change, notes acceptance dip, and holds Scotland.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It finds Scotland's refund breach (~62% above control), ties it to the supplier change after 15 October, notes the acceptance dip, and holds Scotland.

Explains the basket gapRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

It explicitly names Simpson's Paradox and demonstrates that treatment basket values are higher than control in every region, explaining the pooled gap as an uneven-split artifact.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Shows treatment baskets are equal or higher in every region and explains the pooled gap as a traffic-mix effect.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It shows treatment baskets are equal or higher within every region and explains the pooled gap as an artefact of the uneven split.

Catches the duplicate rowsRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

It catches the duplicate North West treatment rows for 8–10 October, states they were removed (2,194 orders), and notes the criterion conclusions for North West hold either way.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Notices the duplicate North West rows, removes them, and states they don't change the verdict.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It catches the duplicate North West treatment rows for 8–10 October, excludes them, and notes the fix needed.

Makes a clear callRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

It makes one clear call per region with specific dates (NO-GO 2 Nov, GO with conditions 5 Nov for four regions, NO-GO indefinitely for Scotland) and states the conditions that would change each.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Makes a clear per-region decision with dates and conditions, and says what would change it.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It makes one clear call per region (no-go, go with conditions, hold) with dates and states what would change each.

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 62% of 68 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1Sonnet 5.5withAPI92.4100.02None
2GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI91.995.82None
3Haiku 5.5withAPI84.3100.02None
4GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT91.992.52None
5Opus 5.5withClaude84.396.72None
6GPT-6 LunawithAPI80.280.82None
7Gemini 4 ArgonwithAPI70.373.32None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini55.059.22None
9Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI64.467.521 capped

What you get for the cost

Haiku 5.5 · API scores within 3 points of Sonnet 5.5 · API at about a tenth of the cost.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.4050607080901001×3×10×30×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 96, 37× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 94, 12× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 93, 2.8× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 93, 46× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Opus 5.5 · Claude: task score 91, 59× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)GPT-6 Luna · API: task score 79, the cheapestGemini 4 Argon · API: task score 71, 14× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 55, 2.7× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Gemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 54, 11× the cheapest, 1 critical failureSonnet 5.5 · APIGPT-6.1 Sol · APIHaiku 5.5 · APIGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Luna · APIGemini 4 Argon · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · GeminiGemini 3.8 Flash · API
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and costCost partly estimated (app runs with no usage meter)At least one critical failure
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API791.0×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini552.7× (partly estimated)
Haiku 5.5 · API932.8×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API5411×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API9412×
Gemini 4 Argon · API7114×
Sonnet 5.5 · API9637×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT9346× (partly estimated)
Opus 5.5 · Claude9159× (partly estimated)

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

Deciding whether a feature ships on the planned date, and on what conditions.

Why it matters

Launch meetings reward optimism. A good call checks each agreed criterion, weighs a real risk against a real gain, and says exactly what would change the answer. A weak one rubber-stamps the launch or blocks it on noise.

What good looks like

  • Checks each agreed criterion against the evidence
  • Makes one clear call, with conditions if needed
  • Separates risks that block launch from risks that can be managed
  • Says what would change the call
  • Says how to limit the damage if the call is wrong

Deliberately not measured

  • Rollout engineering detail
  • Project-plan formatting
Capability tested

Deciding against agreed launch criteria

The failure we’re looking for

Rubber-stamps a launch that misses an agreed bar, or blocks it on noise

Grading

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

Variants

A launch memo from supplied evidence · Staff level: a regional call from an attached data workbook