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?

Task type v1.1 · 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. 50% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

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
Respects explicit constraints99% pass
The output is a memo to Grace Mensah, within the 1,100-word limit, and includes the requested diagnosis and team OKRs with baselines and targets.
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · A great quarter, on paper
Produces the required deliverable99% pass
The memo is complete, in the right form for the CPO, and a PM could act on it with only light edits.
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · A great quarter, on paper

Where it slips

Flags the bonus link47% pass
Mentions bonus multipliers only to justify outcome KRs; does not name the risk of safe targets or suggest decoupling OKR scores from bonuses.
Haiku 5.5 · API · Eleven key results and a bonus
Avoids unsupported claims67% pass
Presents 'the gap is correlation' and 'the safe play is to pick easy KRs' as facts without labeling them as hypotheses.
Sonnet 5.5 · API · Eleven key results and a bonus
Identifies material uncertainty68% 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

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.

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.
Matt LeMayLenny’s Podcast
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.
Christina WodtkeLenny’s Podcast
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.
Matt LeMayLenny’s Podcast Claire Hughes JohnsonLenny’s Podcast

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 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 a Staff PM at Pathwise, working for the CPO, Grace Mensah. Last quarter's OKR scorecard is below, along with the company goal it was meant to serve. Grace wants a memo of no more than 1,100 words: what last quarter's OKRs actually tell us (not just the scores), and next quarter's OKRs for the Learner app, Admin and Growth teams, each with baselines and targets, that add up to the company goal.\n\nThe files are attached.

What the model was given5 items: About Pathwise, company_okr_q3.md, okr_scorecard_q3.csv (team_label is the type each team gave its key result), metric_dictionary.md, churn_reasons_q3.md

About PathwiseOnline learning for companies: courses employees take, and tools for the HR and L&D teams who buy it. Sold per seat on annual contracts.

company_okr_q3.md7 lines · Download

# Company OKR, Q3 (set by the CEO)

Objective: grow by keeping and expanding the customers we have.
- Net revenue retention: from 103% to 108%. Actual: 102%.
- Quarterly logo churn: from 3.1% to 2.5%. Actual: 3.4%.

Q3 average key result score across product teams: 0.81. The all-hands slide said "a great quarter".

okr_scorecard_q3.csv (team_label is the type each team gave its key result)team,objective,key_result,team_label,baseline,target,actual,score Content,Best course library in L&D,Publish 40 new courses,output,0,40,41,1.00 Content,Best course library in L&D,Course completion rate,outcome,41,55,58,1.00 Content,Best course library in L&D,Translate top 20 courses into 3 languages,output,0,60,60,1.00 Learner app,Learning people love,Ship mobile offline mode,output,0,1,1,1.00 Learner app,Learning people love,Weekly active learners per seat,outcome,0.31,0.4,0.29,0.00 Learner app,Learning people love,Ship streaks and badges,output,0,1,1,1.00 Learner app,Learning people love,App store rating,outcome,4.2,4.6,4.5,0.75 Admin,Admins get value fast,Launch 3 HRIS integrations,outcome,0,3,3,1.00 Admin,Admins get value fast,Days from contract to first learner,outcome,34,14,31,0.15 Admin,Admins get value fast,Ship new reporting dashboard,output,0,1,1,1.00 Growth,Expand inside accounts,Seats added in existing accounts,outcome,9200,14000,8100,0.00 Growth,Expand inside accounts,Run 12 expansion experiments,output,0,12,13,1.00 Growth,Expand inside accounts,Launch in-app upgrade prompts,output,0,1,1,1.00 Platform,Reliable at scale,Uptime,outcome,99.5,99.9,99.93,1.00 Platform,Reliable at scale,Migrate to new video CDN,output,0,1,1,1.00 Platform,Reliable at scale,Close 150 bugs,output,0,150,162,1.00

metric_dictionary.md5 lines · Download

# Metric dictionary (excerpt)

- Course completion rate: share of course enrolments marked complete. Until 31 July "complete" meant every module finished. From 1 August it means 80% of modules finished (changed so completion matches the certificate rule).
- Weekly active learners per seat: learners who start or continue a course in a week, divided by paid seats.
- Days from contract to first learner: calendar days from contract signature to the first learner starting a course.

churn_reasons_q3.md8 lines · Download

# Why accounts left in Q3 (exit interviews, 38 accounts)

- "Our people didn't use it": 17
- Budget cut: 9
- Moved to the LMS that came with our HR system: 7
- Content didn't fit our industry: 5

…

What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Reads the scorecard for what it is: the average is 0.81, but every output key result scored 1.00 (things shipped) while outcome key results averaged about 0.48, and the company missed both goals (NRR 102% against 108%, churn 3.4% against 2.5%). Two scores flatter: 'Launch 3 HRIS integrations' is labelled an outcome but is output, and course completion only 'beat' its target because completion was redefined on 1 August (all modules to 80%), so the result can't be compared with its baseline. The outcome key results that matter for churn moved backwards or barely (weekly active learners per seat 0.31 to 0.29; days to first learner 34 to 31; seats added 8,100 against 9,200). Builds next quarter's OKRs on the churn evidence: low usage is the top exit reason, and accounts reaching a first learner within 14 days churn at a third of the rate. So Admin owns days from contract to first learner (from 31), Learner app owns weekly active learners per seat (from 0.29), Growth owns seats added in existing accounts or net expansion, each with a baseline from the files and a target, with shipping work as initiatives. Notes the completion metric needs restating on one definition before anyone uses it.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)

Describes last quarter as a success on the strength of the 0.81 average

Task

Staff-level · v1.1

The outputs

9 setups answered this brief.

GPT-6 AstraChatGPT100Usable with a quick edit GPT-6.1 SolAPI100Usable with a quick edit Sonnet 5.5API100Usable with a quick edit Haiku 5.5API96Usable with a quick edit Opus 5.5Claude88Needs more work GPT-6 LunaAPI85Usable with a quick edit Gemini 4 ArgonAPI77Needs more work Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI58Needs more work Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini33Needs more work

Gemini 4 ArgonAPI

Needs more than a quick edit8 of 11 checks passed

The unsupported causal claims (e.g., about gamification and budget cut causes) would need verification or rewriting before a PM could use it without re-checking evidence or reasoning.

Output

MEMO To: Grace Mensah, CPO From: Staff PM Date: Start of Q4 Subject: Q3 OKR Post-Mortem and Proposed Q4 Product OKRs

1. What Q3’s OKRs Actually Tell Us

At the all-hands, we celebrated a 0.81 average OKR score while the company failed its only two goals: Net Revenue Retention (NRR) dropped from 103% to 102% (target: 108%), and logo churn rose from 3.1% to 3.4% (target: 2.5%).

We achieved high team scores while losing customers because our OKR system rewards shipping features over changing customer behavior.

Outputs disguised as outcomes inflated our score. Ten of our 16 KRs were binary tasks (shipping features, running experiments, closing bugs). The Admin team even mislabeled "Launch 3 HRIS integrations" as an outcome. All 10 output KRs scored 1.00. If we strip out outputs and look only at true outcomes, our average score drops to 0.48. If we further remove technical uptime, the score for customer-behavior outcomes is 0.38.

The commercial outcomes we actually needed to move went backward. * Learner Engagement (0.00): Weekly active learners per seat (WAL/seat) fell from 0.31 to 0.29. Over 70% of paid seats sit unused each week. * Onboarding Speed (0.15): Days from contract to first learner barely budged from 34 to 31 days (target: 14). * Account Expansion (0.00): Seats added in existing accounts fell from 9,200 to 8,100 (target: 14,000).

Our three outcome wins were disconnected from retention: 1. Course completion rate (41% to 58%, score 1.00): This was largely a mirage. On August 1, we lowered the definition of "complete" from 100% of modules finished to 80% to match our certificate rule. We moved the goalposts mid-quarter and claimed a win. 2. App store rating (4.2 to 4.5, score 0.75): A vanity metric. It takes a tiny fraction of happy users to rate an app, which masks the fact that overall weekly usage shrank. 3. Uptime (99.93%, score 1.00): Good hygiene from Platform, but high availability doesn’t stop churn if nobody logs in.

Our outputs failed to move the outcomes they sat next to. * Admin shipped 3 HRIS integrations, yet time-to-first-learner stayed stuck at a month. Shipping an integration means nothing if admins don't adopt it during onboarding. * Learner shipped offline mode, streaks, and badges, yet weekly active usage dropped. Gamification only engages users who are already active; it doesn't get dormant seats in the door. * Growth ran 13 experiments and shipped upgrade prompts, yet added fewer seats than in Q2. You cannot prompt an admin to buy more seats when 71% of the seats they already pay for are gathering dust.

The Root Cause of Q3 Churn Exit interviews from 38 churned accounts make the causal chain clear: * 45% left because "our people didn't use it" (17/38). Another 24% (9/38) cited budget cuts, and 18% (7/38) consolidated into their HR system’s bundled LMS—both of which happen when an L&D team cannot prove ROI on Pathwise usage. * Crucially, accounts that reached their first learner within 14 days churned at a third of the rate of the rest. Right now, our average account takes 31 days—meaning the majority of new cohorts start life in the high-churn danger zone.

---

2. How Q4 OKRs Add Up to the Company Goal

To hit 108% NRR and 2.5% logo churn, Product must fix the sequence of value creation for an annual seat-based business:

Admin must compress onboarding under the 14-day threshold and get seats assigned, cutting early structural churn.
Learner must turn assigned seats into active weekly learners—both to stop the #1 churn reason ("people didn't use it") and to eat up seat capacity.
Growth must convert high seat utilization into mid-contract seat expansion and give L&D buyers the ROI proof they need to defend their budget at renewal.

---

3. Proposed Q4 OKRs (Learner, Admin, Growth)

Every KR below is a measurable customer behavior or business outcome. No roadmaps, features, or experiment counts are permitted on the scorecard.

#### Admin Team Role in Company OKR: Cut logo churn by getting accounts past the 14-day survival mark and driving seat provisioning.

Objective: Get every new account to fast, broad adoption. * KR 1: Reduce average days from contract signature to first learner from 31 days to 14 days. * KR 2: Increase the share of new accounts reaching their first active learner within 14 days from 28% (est. Q3 baseline) to 75%. (Note: Admin to confirm exact Q3 percentage in week 1). * KR 3: Increase average seat assignment rate (paid seats assigned to a named employee via HRIS or invite) within 30 days of contract from 52% (est. baseline) to 85%.

#### Learner App Team Role in Company OKR: Eliminate the #1 churn driver ("people didn't use it") by activating dormant seats and building a weekly learning habit.

Objective: Turn paid seats into weekly active learners. * KR 1: Increase Weekly Active Learners per paid seat (WAL/seat) from 0.29 to 0.42. * KR 2: Increase 30-day assigned-seat activation rate (share of newly assigned seats that start at least one course within 30 days) from 45% (est. baseline) to 70%. * KR 3: Increase course completion rate—held strictly to the constant 80%-module definition—from 58% to 68%.

#### Growth Team Role in Company OKR: Drive NRR from 102% to 108% by expanding capacity-constrained accounts and arming buyers to prevent renewal down-sell.

Objective: Expand high-usage accounts and lock in renewals. * KR 1: Increase quarterly seats added in existing accounts from 8,100 to 14,500 (sized to make up the Q3 shortfall and hit 108% NRR). * KR 2: Increase the quarterly seat-expansion conversion rate among "at-capacity" accounts (accounts with >80% of paid seats assigned and active) from 12% (est. baseline) to 28%. * KR 3: Reduce gross revenue contraction from seat reductions at renewal from 4.5% (est. Q3 baseline) to 2.0% of renewable ARR (e.g., by proving ROI via the new reporting dashboard before renewal conversations).

---

4. Guardrails for Q4 Execution

Freeze the Metric Dictionary: No metric definition may change mid-quarter without CPO sign-off and a retroactive restatement of the baseline.
Track Outputs in Sprint Reviews, Not OKRs: Shipping features, running 12 experiments, or launching integrations are how we try to move KRs. If an experiment ships and the metric doesn’t move, the score is 0.00—which tells us in week 4 to pivot our approach before the quarter is lost.
Confirm Baselines by Friday: Where Q3 tracking didn't capture cohort rates (Admin KR2/KR3, Learner KR2, Growth KR2/KR3), Data and PM leads will pull exact Q3 actuals by Friday so our baselines are locked before Q4 kickoff.

Grades and run details

Decision model 77 · LLM judge 83

Decision model checks

failUses the supplied evidence correctly76%
failAddresses the actual decision20%
passRespects explicit constraints28%
passIdentifies material uncertainty54%
partialAvoids unsupported claims43%
passProduces the required deliverable74%
passReads the scorecard for what it is100%
passCatches the redefined key result98%
passKey results are outcomes, not output97%
passFocuses on the big rock49%
passShows how the goals add up62%

Run

Run: #1
API response time: 22 s
Submitted: 13 Oct 2026

Opus 5.5Claude

Needs more than a quick edit10 of 11 checks passed

The memo contains a factual error in the average score calculation (0.74 vs 0.81), which would require re-checking the evidence before use.

Output

To: Grace Mensah, CPO From: Staff PM, Product Re: What Q3's OKRs tell us, and proposed Q4 OKRs for Learner app, Admin and Growth

---

1. Bottom line

Q3 was not a great quarter. Both company key results moved backwards:

Net revenue retention (NRR) fell from 103% to 102%, against a target of 108%.
Logo churn rose from 3.1% to 3.4%, against a target of 2.5%.

The 0.81 average hid this because it mixed outputs, which we control, with outcomes, which customers control. We shipped everything we said we would. The customer behaviours those launches were meant to change didn't move, or got worse.

2. What Q3 actually tells us

Outputs scored perfectly. Outcomes didn't.

All 10 output key results (KRs) scored 1.00. I'm counting "Launch 3 HRIS integrations" as an output; it was labelled an outcome, but it's a launch.
The 6 genuine outcomes averaged 0.48.
The three outcomes that link most directly to the company goal averaged 0.05: weekly active learners per seat (0.00), days to first learner (0.15) and seats added in existing accounts (0.00).

The 0.81 doesn't reproduce. The 16 KRs on the scorecard average 0.74. Averaging by team gives 0.75. We should find out how 0.81 was calculated before it's quoted again.

Launches didn't move the metrics they targeted.

Team	What shipped	What happened
Learner app	Offline mode, streaks and badges	Weekly active learners per seat fell from 0.31 to 0.29
Growth	13 experiments, in-app upgrade prompts	Seats added fell from 9,200 to 8,100
Admin	3 HRIS integrations, new dashboard	Days to first learner improved only from 34 to 31, against a target of 14

One "win" is probably a definition change. Course completion rose from 41% to 58%. But on 1 August, "complete" changed from 100% of modules finished to 80%. Completion climbing while weekly activity fell suggests most of the gain came from the new definition. We should restate Q3 on both definitions before claiming it.

Scoring rewarded going backwards no more harshly than standing still. Weekly activity and seats added both ended below their baselines, yet each scored 0.00, the same as no change. The scorecard couldn't show that we lost ground.

The churn data points to adoption. Of 38 exit interviews:

Reason for leaving	Accounts	Share
"Our people didn't use it"	17	45%
Budget cut	9	24%
Moved to the LMS bundled with their HR system	7	18%
Content didn't fit their industry	5	13%

Accounts that reached a first learner within 14 days churned at one third the rate of the rest. That is a correlation, not proof: healthier buyers may simply onboard faster. Still, it is our strongest signal. Adoption is the lever. More features and more experiments are not, on Q3's evidence.

3. Rule changes for Q4

KRs are outcomes only. Launches go in a separate initiatives list and are not scored.
Score against the baseline, and allow negative scores. Ending below the baseline should look worse than standing still.
Freeze metric definitions for the quarter. Any change gets restated on both the old and new definition.
Every KR names the company KR it serves.

4. Proposed Q4 OKRs

Baselines are Q3 actuals where we have them. Three baselines are marked TBC: we don't yet track those metrics, and Data will deliver them by the end of week 2. Each target is set as a fixed increase on its baseline, so the target is fixed as soon as the baseline is known.

Learner app. Objective: the seats customers pay for get used. This serves both churn and NRR.

KR	Baseline	Target
Weekly active learners per paid seat (all accounts)	0.29	0.33
Weekly active learners per seat in accounts renewing in Q4 or Q1	TBC	Baseline + 0.05
Guardrail: app store rating	4.5	Stays at or above 4.5

The second KR matters because it targets the accounts whose renewal decision is being made now.

Admin. Objective: every new customer has learners in their first two weeks. This serves churn.

KR	Baseline	Target
Median days from contract to first learner	31 (Q3 figure; confirm it is a median, not a mean)	20
Share of new accounts with a first learner within 14 days	TBC	Baseline + 25 points
Share of new accounts with an HRIS sync live by day 14	TBC	50%

The HRIS sync KR turns the integrations we shipped into usage. It also addresses the 7 accounts that left for their HR system's bundled LMS.

Growth. Objective: expand where usage proves value, and stop seat losses at renewal. This serves NRR.

KR	Baseline	Target
Seats added in existing accounts	8,100	10,000
Seat retention at renewal (seats renewed ÷ seats up for renewal)	TBC (Finance)	Baseline + 3 points

Growth should focus expansion on accounts above a usage threshold, to be agreed with Learner app. Q3 showed that prompting low-usage accounts to upgrade doesn't work.

5. How these add up to the company goal, and where they don't

Churn (3.4% → 2.5%). This works through two levers:

Q4–Q1 renewal accounts. Contracts are annual, so churn this quarter is mostly decided by how accounts used us over the past year. The only lever with a near-term effect is raising usage in accounts renewing soon. That is the Learner app's second KR.
New-account onboarding. Admin's onboarding KRs act on new accounts, which won't come up for renewal for a year.

To illustrate the size of the onboarding effect: suppose 20% of accounts currently reach a first learner within 14 days, and those accounts churn at one third the rate of the rest. Moving that share to 50% would cut churn from 3.4% to about 2.6%. That only holds once the whole customer base has passed through the new onboarding, and only if the relationship is causal.

Honest read: we will not reach 2.5% churn in Q4. Admin's onboarding work is what gets us there in 2025.

NRR (102% → 108%). NRR gains come from two places: fewer churned and contracted seats (Growth's seat retention KR, plus the Learner app's usage work) and more seats added (Growth's expansion KR).

I can't yet show the arithmetic that closes the 6-point gap. That needs Finance's figures for revenue up for renewal and average price per seat. Even with the 10,000 seats target, I expect Q4 to land nearer 104–105% than 108%.

The remaining 6 churned accounts don't map to these KRs, though the HRIS work partly addresses the bundled-LMS losses:

Budget cuts (9 accounts) need commercial responses, such as flexible tiers.
Content fit (5 accounts) belongs to the Content team. Their Q4 KR should be usage of newly published courses, not the number of courses published.

6. Decisions I need from you

Approve the four scoring rules, and correct the 0.81 figure with the CEO.
Discuss the company targets with the CEO. I suggest keeping 108% NRR and 2.5% churn as the year-end destination, with Q4 checkpoints of 104–105% NRR and 3.0% churn, so the scorecard tells the truth.
Ask Finance and Data to deliver the TBC baselines and the NRR arithmetic by the end of week 2. I'll lock the targets the same day.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

The 16 KRs on the scorecard average 0.74, not 0.81.

Grades and run details

Decision model 100 · LLM judge 83

Decision model checks

passUses the supplied evidence correctly31%
passAddresses the actual decision34%
passRespects explicit constraints35%
passIdentifies material uncertainty97%
passAvoids unsupported claims51%
passProduces the required deliverable82%
passReads the scorecard for what it is100%
passCatches the redefined key result100%
passKey results are outcomes, not output86%
passFocuses on the big rock73%
passShows how the goals add up45%

Run

Run: #1
Time to output: 65 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 2

Addresses the actual decisionMixedRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

The memo commits to specific Q4 OKRs for each team, framed for the CPO, and conditionally relies on baseline confirmation to finalise.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Commits to proposed Q4 OKRs and says what would change the NRR target (Finance figures).

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

Several causal claims are presented as settled fact without evidence (e.g., 'gamification only engages users who are already active', 'both [budget cuts and consolidation] happen when an L&D team cannot prove ROI').

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Interpretations are labelled as hypotheses (e.g., 'probably a definition change', 'correlation, not proof').

All mixed 1

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedMixed

Gemini 4 Argon · API

All factual statements about the current situation are sourced from the provided context or follow directly by arithmetic.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The claim that the 16 KRs average 0.74 is a factual error; the correct average is 0.81, so not all statements about the current situation are supported.

All got right 8

Respects explicit constraintsRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

The memo is well within 1,100 words, addresses the CPO as requested, and delivers the required analysis and OKRs.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Memo format, under 1,100 words, includes Q3 analysis and Q4 OKRs for the three teams with baselines and targets.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

It identifies estimated baselines and requires exact Q3 actuals by week 1, acknowledging uncertainty in those numbers.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Identifies TBC baselines, correlation vs causation of onboarding, and NRR gap needing Finance data, with resolution steps.

Produces the required deliverableRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

The memo is a complete deliverable with analysis and team-level OKRs with baselines and targets, usable as-is.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Complete memo to Grace, within length, with actionable Q4 OKRs and clear asks.

Reads the scorecard for what it isRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

It separates output and outcome scores, shows outcome average 0.48, and sets them against the missed company goals.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Splits output (1.00) vs outcome (0.48) scores and contrasts with missed company goals.

Catches the redefined key resultRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

It flags both the course completion definition change and the mislabeled HRIS integration output, explaining how they inflated scores.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Catches the course completion redefinition and the integrations KR being output labelled as outcome, and explains the implications.

Key results are outcomes, not outputRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

All proposed key results are outcome metrics with baselines and targets; no shipping or activity-based KRs appear on the scorecard.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

All proposed KRs are measurable outcomes with baselines and targets; shipping work is explicitly separated.

Focuses on the big rockRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

Each team has one objective and three key results, with explicit reasoning that previous output KRs are dropped because they failed to move outcomes.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Few objectives per team, explains what was dropped (e.g., low-usage upgrade prompts, budget cuts and content fit handled elsewhere).

Shows how the goals add upRightRight

Gemini 4 Argon · API

The memo explicitly links each team's KRs to the company goal of NRR and churn, with a clear laddering narrative.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Each KR is linked to churn or NRR, and uncovered churn reasons are flagged with suggested owners.

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 100% of 12 checks.

#	Model · Harness	Decision model	LLM judge	Runs	Critical failures
1	GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT	97.7	100.0	2	None
2	GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI	97.7	100.0	2	None
3	Sonnet 5.5withAPI	100.0	91.7	2	None
4	Haiku 5.5withAPI	93.2	95.8	2	None
5	Opus 5.5withClaude	95.5	79.2	2	None
6	GPT-6 LunawithAPI	79.5	79.2	2	None
7	Gemini 4 ArgonwithAPI	77.3	70.8	2	None
8	Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI	61.4	62.5	2	None
9	Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini	59.1	45.8	2	None

What you get for the cost

Haiku 5.5 · API scores within 4 points of GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT at about a thirtieth of the cost.

Best valueNobody beats these on both score and cost

Task score and relative cost by setup
Setup	Task score	Relative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API	78	1.0×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini	50	2.1×
Haiku 5.5 · API	95	2.1×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API	59	13×
Gemini 4 Argon · API	71	13×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API	99	16×
Sonnet 5.5 · API	96	44×
Opus 5.5 · Claude	83	78×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT	99	83×

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

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

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

Reliably right

Where it slips

How it’s graded

Key results are outcomes, not output

Focuses on the big rock

Shows how the goals add up

Plus our standard checks

The tasks

The outputs

Output

1. What Q3’s OKRs Actually Tell Us

2. How Q4 OKRs Add Up to the Company Goal

3. Proposed Q4 OKRs (Learner, Admin, Growth)

4. Guardrails for Q4 Execution

Grades and run details

Decision model checks

Run

Output

1. Bottom line

2. What Q3 actually tells us

3. Rule changes for Q4

4. Proposed Q4 OKRs

5. How these add up to the company goal, and where they don't

6. Decisions I need from you

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

Grades and run details

Decision model checks

Run

Check by check

Where they differ 2

All mixed 1

All got right 8

Results

What you get for the cost

About the task

The PM job

Why it matters

What good looks like

Deliberately not measured