Tasks / Metrics & Experimentation

Draft OKRs

Can the model turn a team's wish list into a few outcome-based OKRs that add up to the company's goals?

Measures the modelTask type v1.1 · 3 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

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

From 17 graded outputs by 7 models. 59% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Builds the key results on the data100% pass
    Key results 2 and 3 are built directly on the first-week joining data and time-to-shared-note data, with baselines from the brief and targets.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Eleven key results and a bonus
  2. Aims the teams with the churn data100% pass
    Uses churn reasons and segment data to aim Payroll at errors, Integrations at 3+ integration adoption, and Core HR at churn reduction and price/value risk, with explicit links.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · The goals that don't add up
  3. Reads the 0.95 average for what it is100% pass
    Recognizes the 0.95 average suggests safe targets, and advises against tying bonuses to OKR scores because it would encourage sandbagging.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · The goals that don't add up

Where it slips

  1. Flags the bonus link61% pass
    It names the risk of safe targets but only proposes asking leadership how a 70% score will be read, not a concrete fix like separating bonuses from OKR scores.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Eleven key results and a bonus
  2. Identifies material uncertainty66% pass
    The output does not name any specific unknowns that could change the OKRs or how they would be resolved.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · Eleven key results and a bonus
  3. Uses the supplied evidence correctly71% pass
    Claims that the gap is correlation and that the safe play is to pick easy KRs are not supported by the brief or arithmetic.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Eleven key results and a bonus

How it’s graded

The checks come from what the best product leaders have said about doing this job well on Lenny’s Podcast. Each one names the guest it comes from: follow a name to the idea on the Lenny’s Podcast wiki.

  1. Key results are outcomes, not output

    Is every key result a measurable change in customer or business behaviour, rather than something the team will ship or do?

    Passes when Every key result names a metric with a baseline and a target; shipping work appears only as initiatives that serve them.

  2. Focuses on the big rock

    Does the output cut the goals down to the few that matter most, rather than covering everything the team could do?

    Passes when Few objectives, each with a small number of key results, and says what was dropped and why.

  3. Shows how the goals add up

    Does the output show how each team-level key result contributes to the company-level goals, and flag any that don't?

    Passes when Every key result is linked to a company goal, with the reasoning or data that connects them, and any that serve no company goal are flagged or cut.

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 2 written for each task, which you’ll see in the tasks below.

The tasks

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

The brief

You're a Staff PM working for Hannah Iyer, Quarry's CPO. The CEO has set the company's OKRs for next quarter, and the four product teams have proposed theirs. Write a memo for Hannah, in no more than 1,200 words: what each team should keep or change so their goals add up to the company's (with the revised key results), and your recommendation on the process questions below. The pack below is everything we have. Not all of it matters equally.

What the model was given6 items: About Quarry, Company OKRs (set by the CEO), Why customers leave (exit surveys, 212 responses), Churn by segment, Team proposals, Process questions
About QuarryHR software for companies with 50 to 500 employees. 420 staff, 2,600 customers. The core HR product is sold per employee; Payroll is a paid add-on.
Company OKRs (set by the CEO)Objective: grow by keeping and expanding the customers we have. Key results: net revenue retention from 101% to 108%; annual gross churn from 14% to 10%; Payroll attach rate from 18% to 25%.
Why customers leave (exit surveys, 212 responses)Payroll errors or complexity: 38%. Price: 24%. Missing integrations: 19%. Moved to an all-in-one competitor: 11%. Other: 8%.
Churn by segmentCustomers using Payroll: 8% a year. Customers without it: 16%. Customers with three or more integrations connected: 6%.
Team proposalsCore HR. Objective: build the best HR platform. Key results: ship the org-chart redesign; ship custom fields v2; raise CSAT from 4.2 to 4.5. Payroll. Objective: make payroll effortless. Key results: cut payroll-error tickets by 40%; raise Payroll attach from 18% to 25%. Integrations. Objective: connect everything. Key result: ship 12 new integrations. Growth. Objective: win more customers. Key results: new logos up 20%; trial conversion from 9% to 12%.
Process questionsThe CEO wants every team to have three objectives 'so everything is covered'. The CFO wants OKR scores to set PM bonuses from next quarter. Last year teams scored 0.95 on average. Planning last quarter took five of the quarter's thirteen weeks.
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Rewrites each team's goals so they add up to the company's. Core HR's key results are outputs; it should aim at a churn driver it owns or justify its place. Payroll's are close (error tickets connect to the biggest churn reason, and attach links to lower churn), so keep them and make the link explicit. Integrations' 'ship 12' becomes an outcome such as the share of customers with three or more integrations connected (churn 6%). Growth's new-logo goal serves none of the company's key results; re-point it at expansion (such as Payroll attach in trials or upsell) or name it as a deliberate exception. Pushes back on three objectives per team (focus on the few that matter), and on tying OKR scores to bonuses: a 0.95 average already suggests safe targets, and pay would make it worse. Suggests a lighter, shorter planning process.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Endorses tying OKR scores to PM bonuses without flagging the risk
Task

Staff-level · v1.0 · synthetic · B2B SaaS, goals, staff-level

The outputs

7 setups answered this brief. Pick up to three to read side by side.

Usable with a quick edit11 of 11 checks passed

The memo is clear, actionable, and covers all required elements; a PM could use it with only minor wording adjustments.

Output

To: Hannah Iyer, CPO Subject: Next-quarter OKRs: focus teams on retention and expansion

The CEO’s objective is clear, but the team proposals do not yet add up to it: Growth is optimizing new logos, while Core HR and Integrations mostly measure shipping. I recommend one objective per team, with a small number of measurable results tied to the company outcomes. Keep delivery plans such as “ship 12 integrations” as initiatives, not proof of impact.

Team recommendations

Core HR — change the objective and replace output KRs. “Build the best HR platform” is too broad. Org-chart redesign, custom fields, and CSAT may be useful, but the pack does not show that shipping them will reduce churn or grow revenue. Prioritize work against the customer problems behind churn—including price/value, which needs a product and pricing response rather than a feature assumption.

Revised objective: Improve retention of core HR customers. - Reduce annualized gross churn for customers without Payroll from 16% to at most 10.7%. This is a first-pass allocation: if Payroll attach reaches 25%, Payroll churn stays at 8%, and the segment rates are customer-weighted, non-Payroll churn needs to be about 10.7% for overall churn to reach 10%. Validate definitions and denominators before locking this target. - Keep CSAT at or above 4.2 as a guardrail, rather than making a score increase the main success measure.

Treat the two proposed launches as candidate initiatives, to be prioritized only if evidence links them to retention or expansion.

Payroll — keep the strongest proposal; clarify the outcome. Payroll directly supports both the company’s attach and churn goals. Payroll customers churn at half the rate of non-Payroll customers, and payroll errors or complexity are the most common reported reason for leaving.

Revised objective: Make Payroll reliable and grow adoption among current customers. - Increase Payroll attach from 18% to 25%. - Reduce payroll-error tickets by 40%. - Keep annual Payroll customer churn at 8% or lower.

Define error-ticket counting consistently, and pair the reduction with a quality guardrail so the metric cannot improve by discouraging customers from reporting problems.

Integrations — keep the problem area; replace “ship 12” as the key result. The evidence supports this area: missing integrations account for 19% of exit-survey responses, and customers with three or more integrations have 6% annual churn. But shipping integrations does not show that customers adopt them or stay.

Revised objective: Reduce integration-related customer loss. - Reduce integrations’ share of exit-survey reasons for leaving from 19% to 14%; treat this as a directional diagnostic, since survey shares are noisy. - Increase the number of customers with three or more active integrations. Establish the baseline in week one and set a numeric quarter target before plans are finalized; the pack does not provide enough data to invent one. - Keep “12 integrations shipped” as a delivery commitment only where customer demand and expected adoption justify it.

Growth — change the objective and stop optimizing acquisition this quarter. New logos and trial conversion do not support the stated company objective. Reorient Growth toward expansion in the installed base, working with Payroll on customer targeting and adoption.

Revised objective: Grow revenue from existing customers. - Increase company NRR from 101% to 108%; Growth is accountable for the expansion motion, with other teams contributing to the shared result. - Set a numeric target, after establishing a baseline, for expansion revenue from existing customers excluding Payroll attach. This makes Growth’s contribution visible without double-counting Payroll’s attach KR.

Process recommendations

  • Do not require three objectives per team. Coverage is not a reason to dilute focus. Use one objective and a few KRs per team; capture other responsibilities as initiatives or guardrails. Make cross-team ownership explicit, with one directly accountable owner for each company KR.
  • Do not use OKR scores to set PM bonuses next quarter. Bonuses would encourage teams to choose safe targets, avoid shared work, or optimize the score instead of customer outcomes. An average score of 0.95 last year is already a reason to examine target-setting and scoring calibration—not to add financial stakes. Keep performance and compensation decisions separate from quarterly OKR scores.
  • Cut planning from five weeks to two. Five weeks consumes nearly 40% of the quarter. Timebox baseline checks and target-setting, then revisit assumptions during the quarter. Use the missing integration and expansion baselines to sharpen targets early, not to prolong planning.

Finally, treat the company’s annual churn and NRR measures as lagging outcomes: review leading indicators during the quarter, but keep the company outcomes as the test of whether the portfolio is working.

Grades and run details

Decision model 95 · LLM judge 12 of 12 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly33%
  • passAddresses the actual decision68%
  • passRespects explicit constraints54%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty65%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims30%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable52%
  • passAims the teams with the churn data94%
  • passReads the 0.95 average for what it is91%
  • passKey results are outcomes, not output70%
  • passFocuses on the big rock97%
  • passShows how the goals add up57%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
57 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026

Usable with a quick edit8 of 11 checks passed

The memo is actionable and well-structured; only a minor edit to change Integrations KR2 from a shipping deliverable to an outcome metric is needed, without redoing any reasoning.

Output

MEMORANDUM

TO: Hannah Iyer, Chief Product Officer FROM: Staff Product Manager DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: Q1 Product OKR Alignment & Planning Governance

---

Executive Summary

The CEO’s Q1 mandate is clear: grow through retention and expansion (NRR 101% → 108%, Gross Churn 14% → 10%, Payroll Attach 18% → 25%).

However, our product teams have largely proposed business-as-usual, output-driven goals. Most critically, Growth is running in the opposite direction (hunting new logos instead of retention/expansion), Integrations is measuring shipping volume instead of adoption, and Core HR has defaulted to feature delivery.

Below is an analysis of what each team must keep and change, their revised OKRs, and recommendations to resolve the three executive governance bottlenecks.

---

Part 1: Team-by-Team OKR Revisions

#### 1. Payroll * Keep: Focus on error reduction. Exit surveys show payroll errors/complexity cause 38% of all churn. Cutting error tickets is directly tied to saving revenue. * Change: Remove pure attach rate as Payroll’s sole downstream KR. Product cannot own GTM distribution alone; Payroll must focus on the product friction that unlocks adoption and prevents churn within the first 90 days. * Revised OKR: * Objective: Deliver a zero-defect payroll experience that drives expansion and retention. * KR 1: Reduce payroll-related support tickets / error reports by 40% (churn mitigation). * KR 2: Reduce time-to-first-run for newly activated payroll accounts from X days to Y days (activation velocity). * KR 3: Maintain monthly payroll run success rate at 99.5%+ across all active payroll customers.

#### 2. Integrations * Keep: Focus on ecosystem connectivity. Customers with 3+ integrations churn at just 6% (vs. 14% company average). * Change: Kill the output metric ("Ship 12 new integrations"). Integrations have zero ROI if unadopted. The team must optimize for depth of adoption—specifically pushing accounts to the 3+ threshold—and target the specific missing integrations driving the 19% churn response. * Revised OKR: * Objective: Deepen customer stickiness by embedding Quarry into the customer’s core toolstack. * KR 1: Increase % of total customers with 3+ active integrations from X% to Y% (driving toward the 6% churn cohort). * KR 2: Deliver the top 3 requested integrations identified in churn exit surveys (accounting/time-tracking). * KR 3: Increase weekly active sync volume / data exchange by 25%.

#### 3. Growth * Keep: Growth's experimentation velocity and funnel mechanics. * Change: Completely pivot away from top-of-funnel acquisition (new logos / trials). Acquisition is GTM-heavy and contradicts the company’s explicit retention/expansion strategy. Growth must be deployed against in-app cross-sell (Payroll attach) and per-seat expansion. * Revised OKR: * Objective: Accelerate revenue expansion across the installed customer base. * KR 1: Drive self-serve/assisted Payroll attach rate from 18% to 25% (CEO target). * KR 2: Increase in-app expansion qualified leads (PQLs) for Payroll passed to Sales by 35%. * KR 3: Increase customer employee invite/seat-activation rate from X% to Y% in accounts with >100 employees.

#### 4. Core HR * Keep: Focus on platform satisfaction (CSAT). * Change: Eliminate roadmap feature-shipping milestones ("Ship org-chart", "Ship custom fields v2") as Key Results. Features are inputs; the outcome is reducing platform-switching churn (11% leave for all-in-one competitors) and protecting the base. * Revised OKR: * Objective: Establish Core HR as the indispensable daily system of record for mid-market admins. * KR 1: Increase core platform CSAT among HR Admins from 4.2 to 4.5. * KR 2: Increase WAU/MAU engagement of company admins on core workflows (org management, employee records) from X% to Y%. * KR 3: Reduce voluntary logo churn of non-payroll accounts from 16% to 12%.

---

OKR Alignment Matrix

TeamFocus AreaPrimary Metric OwnedCompany OKR Impact
:---:---:---:---
PayrollDefect reduction & run reliabilityError tickets (-40%)Gross Churn (14% → 10%)
IntegrationsIntegration depth (3+ threshold)% accounts with 3+ integrationsGross Churn (14% → 10%)
GrowthCross-sell & expansion funnelsAttach rate (18% → 25%)NRR (101% → 108%)
Core HRPlatform utility & admin CSATAdmin CSAT (4.2 → 4.5) & base churnGross Churn (14% → 10%)

---

Part 2: Governance & Process Recommendations

#### 1. CEO Request: "Three Objectives per team to cover everything" * Recommendation: Decline firmly. * Rationale: A product team with 3 objectives across 4 teams creates 12 competing product priorities for 420 staff. When everything is covered, nothing is prioritized. Objectives are strategic shifts, not operational check-lists. * Counter-Proposal: Enforce one single Objective per team with 2–3 measurable, outcome-based Key Results. Day-to-day maintenance, technical debt, and minor bugs should be managed via standard SLAs and operational run-rate dashboards, not masqueraded as quarterly OKRs.

#### 2. CFO Request: Tie OKR scores to PM bonuses (Historical avg: 0.95) * Recommendation: Reject this proposal. * Rationale: A historical average of 0.95 is an alarming indicator of extreme sandbagging. Healthy OKR frameworks target an average score of 0.70 ("stretch goals"). If bonuses are linked to OKR achievement: 1. Teams will negotiate unchallenging, output-based metrics (e.g., "Ship custom fields" or "Ship 12 integrations") to guarantee 1.0 payouts. 2. Cross-team collaboration will break; teams will refuse shared accountability for complex metrics like Attach Rate or Churn. * Counter-Proposal: Separate evaluation from OKRs. Measure OKR outcomes as a lagging input into broader performance reviews, but assess PMs on holistic impact: strategic execution, product discovery quality, and business outcome delivery. Reset the target score expectations so that achieving 0.70 is celebrated as exceptional execution against ambitious goals.

#### 3. Planning Cadence: Reducing the 5-week overhead * Diagnosis: Spending 5 out of 13 weeks (38% of the quarter) planning is an unsustainable productivity drain. It signals an overly bottom-up, consensus-driven process with insufficient top-down constraints. * Prescription (2-Week Maximum Planning Cycle): * Week -2 (Day 1–3): Top-Down Mandate. Exec team delivers locked company OKRs and operational boundaries. * Week -2 (Day 4–7): Draft Team OKRs. Product squads define 1 Objective and 3 outcome-based KRs directly mapped to executive metrics. * Week -1 (Day 8–10): Cross-Dependency & CPO Review. Hannah and tech leads conduct a single cross-functional review to resolve dependencies (e.g., Growth ↔ Payroll attach). * Week -1 (Day 11–14): Final Approval & Lock. OKRs published before the start of the quarter; zero changes permitted thereafter.

---

Immediate Action Items for Hannah

  1. Schedule an Executive Alignment Session with the CEO: Present the unified 1-Objective model, demonstrating how 4 hyper-focused product goals cover Gross Churn, NRR, and Attach Rate far more effectively than 12 diluted objectives.
  2. Align with the CFO: Share the risk analysis regarding metric inflation (the 0.95 score reality) and present the alternative performance compensation model.
  3. Issue Directive to Product Leads: Reject Growth, Core HR, and Integrations' current drafts. Instruct them to submit revised KRs based on the outcome targets above by end of week.

Grades and run details

Decision model 59 · LLM judge 10 of 12 checks
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly21%
  • passAddresses the actual decision70%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints26%
  • failIdentifies material uncertainty44%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims44%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable62%
  • passAims the teams with the churn data99%
  • passReads the 0.95 average for what it is100%
  • partialKey results are outcomes, not output87%
  • passFocuses on the big rock89%
  • partialShows how the goals add up79%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
30 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

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyRightMixed
GPT-6 Luna · API

All factual claims about the current situation are directly supported by the supplied context or simple arithmetic.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

All factual claims about the current situation are directly from the brief or supplied context.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightWrong
GPT-6 Luna · API

It names missing baselines and definitional unknowns, and says to establish baselines in week one and validate definitions before locking targets.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output does not name any specific unknowns that could change the decisions or say how they would be resolved.

Key results are outcomes, not outputRightWrong
GPT-6 Luna · API

Every key result is a measurable outcome (churn, attach, error tickets, CSAT guardrail, exit-survey share, 3+ integrations, NRR, expansion revenue); shipping appears only as initiatives.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Integrations KR2 ('Deliver the top 3 requested integrations') is a shipping deliverable, not an outcome metric.

All got right 8

Addresses the actual decisionRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

The memo commits to clear revised key results for each team and explicit process recommendations, framed for Hannah.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo commits to clear recommendations for each team's OKRs and process questions, framed for Hannah.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

The output is a memo under 1,200 words, addresses the CPO, and respects the requested form.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output is a memo under 1,200 words, addressed to Hannah, and respects the requested form.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

Interpretations and forecasts are clearly labelled or are directly supported by the evidence; no unsupported factual claims are presented as established.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Interpretations and forecasts are presented as recommendations or rationale, not as established facts.

Produces the required deliverableRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

The memo provides revised team goals with key results and process recommendations, and is usable with light edits.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo includes revised OKRs, links to company goals, and process recommendations, and is usable as-is.

Aims the teams with the churn dataRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

It uses the churn reasons and segment data to aim Payroll at errors, Integrations at 3+ integrations, and Core HR at non-Payroll churn, with explicit links.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo uses payroll errors (38%) for Payroll, 3+ integrations (6%) for Integrations, and 11% all-in-one for Core HR, with clear links.

Reads the 0.95 average for what it isRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

It flags the 0.95 average as a sign of safe targets and recommends against tying bonuses to scores to avoid further sandbagging.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo flags the 0.95 average as sandbagging and argues that tying bonuses would worsen target-setting.

Focuses on the big rockRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

It cuts each team to one objective with a few KRs, drops shipping KRs, and explains what was dropped and why.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo cuts each team to one objective with 2-3 KRs, drops new logos and feature-shipping, and explains why.

Shows how the goals add upRightRight
GPT-6 Luna · API

Each team-level KR is linked to a company goal with reasoning or data, and the new-logo goal is flagged as not supporting the company objective and reoriented.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Every team's primary metric is linked to a company OKR in the alignment matrix, and misaligned goals are flagged.

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task type, across all its tasks and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Provisional The checklist is still being calibrated against our PM.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI100.0100.02None
2GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT98.5100.03None
3Sonnet 5.5withAPI90.991.72None
4GPT-6 LunawithAPI93.283.32None
5Opus 5.5withClaude90.986.13None
6Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI68.270.82None
7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini65.250.03None

About the task

The PM job

Setting a team's goals for the quarter.

Why it matters

Most OKRs are task lists in disguise. Teams ship everything on them and nothing moves.

What good looks like

  • Key results are outcomes, not things to ship
  • Few enough to focus on
  • Each team's goals visibly add up to the company's
  • Kept apart from performance ratings

Deliberately not measured

  • OKR software or formatting
Capability tested

Goal setting

The failure we’re looking for

A task list dressed up as key results

Grading

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