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

  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. 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
  3. 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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.

  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 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.

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:

  1. Admin must compress onboarding under the 14-day threshold and get seats assigned, cutting early structural churn.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. Freeze the Metric Dictionary: No metric definition may change mid-quarter without CPO sign-off and a retroactive restatement of the baseline.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

Needs more than a quick edit3 of 11 checks passed

The memo invents baselines for new metrics not in the supplied data, and includes output key results that are things to ship, requiring rework of the OKRs and verification of baselines before use.

Output

MEMORANDUM

TO: Grace Mensah, Chief Product Officer FROM: Staff PM, Product DATE: October 2, 2023 SUBJECT: Q3 OKR Post-Mortem & Q4 Product OKRs

---

Part 1: What Q3 Actually Tells Us (Beyond the 0.81 Score)

On paper, Q3 looked like a triumph. The company-wide average key result score across product teams was 0.81, prompting celebratory remarks at the all-hands. However, a closer look at the data reveals a stark disconnect between our product output and the company’s core objective: growth by keeping and expanding the customers we have.

The company's Q3 goals failed. Net Revenue Retention (NRR) dropped from our baseline of 103% to an actual of 102% (target: 108%), and quarterly logo churn rose from 3.1% to 3.4% (target: 2.5%).

Why did we miss our financial and retention targets while hitting an 0.81 KR score? The data points to a systemic structural flaw in how we set and measure OKRs: we rewarded teams for shipping outputs, while outcomes that actually drive retention and expansion flatlined or missed.

1. The Output-Outcome Illusion: Look at the team scorecards. Every single output KR scored 1.00. Content published 41 courses (target 40), translated 60 items, shipped mobile offline mode, shipped streaks and badges, launched three HRIS integrations, shipped a new reporting dashboard, ran 13 expansion experiments, launched in-app upgrade prompts, migrated a video CDN, and closed 162 bugs. We were exceptionally busy. Conversely, our critical outcomes largely failed: * Learner App: Weekly active learners per seat plummeted from 0.31 to an actual of 0.29 (target: 0.40, score: 0.00). * Admin: Days from contract to first learner barely budged, moving from 34 to 31 days (target: 14 days, score: 0.15). * Growth: Seats added in existing accounts fell from a baseline of 9,200 to 8,100 (target: 14,000, score: 0.00).

2. The Root Causes of Churn: Our Q3 exit interviews across 38 churned accounts provide the smoking gun. The leading reason for churn—cited by nearly half (17 out of 38)—was simple: "Our people didn't use it." Furthermore, the data reveals a powerful operational lever we have ignored: accounts that reached their first learner within 14 days of contract signature churned at one-third of the rate of the rest. Yet, our Admin team’s initiative to reduce this time stalled at 31 days.

3. Metric Distortions: Even our apparent wins require scrutiny. Content’s course completion rate hit 1.00 (rising from 41% to 58%), but the metric dictionary reveals a rule change on August 1st: the definition of "complete" was quietly lowered from 100% of modules finished to 80%. The "success" is largely an artifact of moving the goalposts.

The Takeaway: In Q3, product engineering functioned as an effective feature factory, but those features did not translate into user engagement, rapid time-to-value, or account expansion. To fix NRR and logo churn in Q4, we must completely realign product incentives away from output delivery and lock them onto core engagement and adoption metrics.

---

Part 2: Q4 OKRs for Learner App, Admin, and Growth Teams

To directly support the CEO's ongoing company objective—grow by keeping and expanding the customers we have—we are restructuring Q4 OKRs. Every team’s objectives are anchored to lagging retention drivers (engagement, time-to-value, and expansion).

#### 1. Learner App Team * Context & Rationale: With 17 out of 38 churned accounts citing lack of employee usage, the Learner App team must pivot away from vanity features (streaks and badges shipped in Q3 did nothing to stop the drop) and focus entirely on driving habitual weekly usage. * Objective: Drive habitual engagement to secure employee adoption and prevent account-level churn. * Key Results: * KR 1 (Outcome): Increase weekly active learners per seat from 0.29 to 0.36. (Baseline: 0.29, Target: 0.36) * KR 2 (Outcome): Increase 30-day course retention rate for newly enrolled learners from 22% to 35%. (Baseline: 22%, Target: 35%) * KR 3 (Output): Ship personalized "Next Step" AI recommendations on the home screen to streamline the path from login to learning. (Baseline: 0, Target: 1)

#### 2. Admin Team * Context & Rationale: Exit data proves that getting the first learner active within 14 days slashes churn by two-thirds. In Q3, we focused on HRIS integrations (output), but customers still languished for 31 days before their employees started learning. Admin must own the friction reduction between contract signature and organizational activation. * Objective: Accelerate time-to-value so customer organizations realize immediate ROI. * Key Results: * KR 1 (Outcome): Reduce days from contract signature to first learner from 31 days to 14 days. (Baseline: 31, Target: 14) * KR 2 (Outcome): Increase self-serve HRIS integration completion rate (admins successfully connecting without support intervention) from 40% to 75%. (Baseline: 40%, Target: 75%) * KR 3 (Output): Launch automated "Nudge Admin" workflow triggers when zero learners are active 7 days post-contract. (Baseline: 0, Target: 1)

#### 3. Growth Team * Context & Rationale: Q3 saw expansion seats drop to 8,100 against a 14,000 target. Running 12 experiments and launching upgrade prompts generated output, but no revenue expansion. Growth must transition from running experiments to driving net-new seat expansion inside existing healthy accounts. * Objective: Expand footprint and seat count within existing healthy accounts. * Key Results: * KR 1 (Outcome): Increase net new seats added in existing accounts from 8,100 (Q3 actual) to 12,500. (Baseline: 8,100, Target: 12,500) * KR 2 (Outcome): Increase conversion rate of in-app upgrade prompts from trial/capped tiers to paid seat expansions from 1.2% to 3.5%. (Baseline: 1.2%, Target: 3.5%) * KR 3 (Output): Launch automated team-invitation workflows for departmental managers in accounts nearing seat capacity limits. (Baseline: 0, Target: 1)

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • 30-day course retention rate for newly enrolled learners baseline is 22%
  • Self-serve HRIS integration completion rate baseline is 40%
  • Conversion rate of in-app upgrade prompts baseline is 1.2%
  • Streaks and badges shipped in Q3 did nothing to stop the drop in weekly active learners
  • Product engineering functioned as an effective feature factory

Grades and run details

Decision model 45 · LLM judge 25
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly64%
  • failAddresses the actual decision88%
  • passRespects explicit constraints27%
  • failIdentifies material uncertainty25%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims52%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable37%
  • passReads the scorecard for what it is97%
  • partialCatches the redefined key result95%
  • partialKey results are outcomes, not output41%
  • partialFocuses on the big rock33%
  • partialShows how the goals add up51%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
8 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 7

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output invents baselines for new metrics (30-day course retention 22%, self-serve HRIS integration completion 40%, in-app upgrade prompt conversion 1.2%) that are not in the supplied context.

Addresses the actual decisionMixedWrong
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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo does not state what result or condition would change the recommended OKRs, failing to meet the requirement to say what would change the answer.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output names no unknowns that could change the decision and does not say how they would be resolved.

Catches the redefined key resultRightWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

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

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo catches the course completion redefinition but does not mention that the 'Launch 3 HRIS integrations' KR is output mislabelled as outcome.

Key results are outcomes, not outputRightWrong
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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

Each team's third key result is a thing to ship (e.g., 'Ship personalized AI recommendations'), not a measurable change in customer or business behaviour.

Focuses on the big rockRightWrong
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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output does not state what was dropped from the previous quarter's scope or why, failing the requirement to cut goals down to the few that matter most.

Shows how the goals add upRightWrong
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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output key results (shipping features) are not linked to a company goal with reasoning or data, and no KR is flagged as not serving a company goal.

All got wrong 1

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongWrong
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').

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

Causal claims like 'streaks and badges did nothing to stop the drop' and 'product engineering functioned as an effective feature factory' are presented as fact without being labelled as hypotheses.

All got right 3

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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output is a memo under 1,100 words, addressed to Grace Mensah, and includes the requested analysis and next-quarter OKRs with baselines and targets.

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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo is complete, in the right form, within the word limit, and a PM could act on its structure with light edits.

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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo explicitly splits output KRs (all scored 1.00) from outcome KRs (most missed) and contrasts them with the missed company goals.

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 · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT97.7100.02None
2GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI97.7100.02None
3Sonnet 5.5withAPI100.091.72None
4Haiku 5.5withAPI93.295.82None
5Opus 5.5withClaude95.579.22None
6GPT-6 LunawithAPI79.579.22None
7Gemini 4 ArgonwithAPI77.370.82None
8Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI61.462.52None
9Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini59.145.82None

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.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.4050607080901001×3×10×30×100×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 99, 83× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 99, 16× the cheapestSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 96, 44× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 95, 2.1× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 83, 78× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 78, the cheapestGemini 4 Argon · API: task score 71, 13× the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 59, 13× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 50, 2.1× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTGPT-6.1 Sol · APISonnet 5.5 · APIHaiku 5.5 · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Luna · APIGemini 4 Argon · APIGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and cost
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API781.0×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini502.1×
Haiku 5.5 · API952.1×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API5913×
Gemini 4 Argon · API7113×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API9916×
Sonnet 5.5 · API9644×
Opus 5.5 · Claude8378×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT9983×

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

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