Tasks / Strategy

Develop product strategy

Can the model make a coherent choice grounded in the evidence, rather than list aspirations?

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. 33% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Respects explicit constraints100% pass
    One-page, ~500 words, one major bet, addressed to the CEO for the board.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Supply or demand for a stalled marketplace
  2. Produces the required deliverable100% pass
    Complete strategy document in the requested form, length, and for the named reader; the board could act on it.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Supply or demand for a stalled marketplace
  3. Diagnosis before prescription100% pass
    Diagnosis: students can't find the right tutor; actions (intake, recommendations, rematch, manual matching) directly address it.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Supply or demand for a stalled marketplace

Where it slips

  1. Names an advantage that's hard to copy10% pass
    Does not name a benefit and a barrier that a well-funded competitor couldn't copy; no moat is identified.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Supply or demand for a stalled marketplace
  2. Proposes tests that could fail46% pass
    The operating targets for mid-market and SMB lack explicit actions if missed; only the enterprise gate specifies what each result triggers.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Enterprise, says the CEO
  3. Avoids unsupported claims54% pass
    Presents 'root cause: we've let the loudest requests set the roadmap' and 'SMB remains our top-of-funnel' as facts without labelling them as hypotheses or citing evidence.
    Haiku 5.5 · API · Enterprise, says the CEO

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. Diagnosis before prescription

    Does the strategy name the crux, the specific obstacle or opportunity the evidence points to, and do the proposed actions follow from that diagnosis?

    Passes when States one crux grounded in the supplied evidence, and each major action visibly addresses it.

  2. Names an advantage that's hard to copy

    Does the strategy say what will make its position hard for an informed, well-funded competitor to copy (a benefit customers value plus a barrier to copying it), rather than relying on being first, on features, or on funding?

    Passes when Names the benefit and the barrier, and why a capable competitor couldn't simply replicate it.

  3. Says what it gives up

    Does the strategy name what the company will stop doing, or deliberately not do, in order to pursue it?

    Passes when Names at least one real thing being dropped or declined, with the reason it loses out.

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 · Proposes tests that could fail · 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

Our tutoring marketplace has stalled at about 4,000 bookings a month. Write a one-page strategy for the next 12 months (about 500 words) for our CEO to take to the board. We can fund one major bet.

What the model was given4 items: Scenario, Metrics, Research, Board view
ScenarioTutorly connects secondary-school students with independent tutors for online lessons at £30–45 an hour; we take a 20% commission. There are 6,500 active tutors and 11,000 active students. We have 18 months of runway and about £1.2m to put behind the one bet.
MetricsTutor supply up 60% year on year; bookings up 8%. 70% of tutors get zero bookings in a typical month. Repeat booking rate is 64% for students who book twice.
ResearchStudents cite 'finding the right tutor' as their top problem. Tutors cite 'not enough students'.
Board viewThe board believes paid acquisition of students is the answer.
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Recognise the contradiction: supply is abundant but matching fails, so buying demand into a broken match pours water into a leaky bucket. Choose matching quality and say what is given up.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Recommends paid demand acquisition without addressing matching
Task

Staff-level · v1.13

The outputs

9 setups answered this brief.

Needs more than a quick edit6 of 12 checks passed

Contains unsupported claims about dormant students and second-booking rate that would require fact-checking, making it unusable with just a quick edit.

Output

MEMORANDUM TO: The Board of Directors FROM: CEO, Tutorly DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: 12-Month Strategy: Unlocking Liquidity via Guided Matching

1. The Diagnosis: A Conversion Crisis, Not an Acquisition Crisis Tutorly has stalled at 4,000 monthly bookings, generating roughly £30,000 in monthly net revenue. While the Board has suggested deploying our £1.2m capital into paid student acquisition, the data indicates this would be a fatal mistake.

We do not have a top-of-funnel problem; we have a liquidity and matching problem. We currently have 11,000 active students on the platform, yet they generate only 4,000 bookings. Meanwhile, our tutor supply has grown 60% YoY to 6,500, leaving 70% of tutors with zero bookings a month.

Why are 11,000 active students not booking 6,500 available tutors? User research gives us the answer: students are paralyzed by the paradox of choice, citing "finding the right tutor" as their top barrier. Tutors think there aren't enough students, when in reality, bloated supply is actively hurting student conversion. Pouring £1.2m of paid marketing into a leaky bucket will only burn our 18-month runway faster.

However, our bright spot is retention: when a student books twice, their repeat rate is 64%. Our core strategic challenge is getting existing students from browsing to their second booking.

2. Our One Major Bet: "Tutorly Match" & Supply Curation Instead of buying traffic, we will invest our £1.2m in product-led conversion. We will pivot Tutorly from an open directory (like Craigslist) to a curated, algorithmically matched marketplace (like Uber).

Over the next 12 months, we will execute a three-part strategy:

  • Aggressive Supply Curation: We will freeze new tutor onboarding and delist the bottom 50% of inactive/low-converting tutors. By concentrating demand among the top 2,000 tutors, we instantly improve the average quality of a student’s first lesson and keep our best tutors earning and engaged.
  • The "Concierge" Matching Engine: We will replace our search bar with a diagnostic intake flow. Students will input their exam board, target grade, and learning style, and our algorithm will present only three ideal tutors.
  • The "Two-Lesson" Guarantee: Because a second booking triggers a 64% repeat rate, we will subsidize the friction of trial-and-error. If a student doesn’t click with their first matched tutor, Tutorly will fund the first lesson with a replacement tutor.

3. Capital Allocation (£1.2m) * £650k (Product & Data): Hiring a dedicated squad (PM, Data Scientist, 3 Engineers) to build the matching engine, diagnostic onboarding, and a revamped tutor rating system based on student retention. * £350k (The "Second Booking" Subsidy): Financing the "First-Match Guarantee" and discounting a bundled "First Two Lessons" package to force the habit loop. * £200k (Lifecycle Marketing): Automated CRM flows (SMS/Email) to re-engage the ~7,000 dormant students currently on our platform.

4. 12-Month Success Metrics By fixing the conversion bottleneck first, we build a machine that can profitably scale paid acquisition in Year 2. By Q4 next year, this bet will deliver: 1. Bookings: Increase from 4,000 to 12,000/month (tripling net revenue to ~£90k/month). 2. Student Activation: Increase the percentage of active students reaching their 2nd booking from ~15% to 40%. 3. Marketplace Health: Reduce the "zero-booking" tutor rate from 70% to under 20% (on a curated base of 2,500 tutors).

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • ~7,000 dormant students currently on our platform
  • current percentage of active students reaching their 2nd booking is ~15%
  • students are paralyzed by the paradox of choice
  • bloated supply is actively hurting student conversion

Grades and run details

Decision model 58 · LLM judge 46
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly55%
  • failAddresses the actual decision45%
  • passRespects explicit constraints56%
  • failIdentifies material uncertainty66%
  • failAvoids unsupported claims69%
  • passProduces the required deliverable77%
  • passSurfaces the central contradiction100%
  • passMakes a clear choice100%
  • passDiagnosis before prescription100%
  • passProposes tests that could fail7%
  • failNames an advantage that's hard to copy27%
  • passSays what it gives up100%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
12 s
Submitted
13 Oct 2026

Needs more than a quick edit9 of 12 checks passed

Missing a numeric threshold for the pilot kill criterion and no moat; a PM would need to add those before use.

Output

Tutorly: 12-month strategy — make every good match count

Recommendation: Put our £1.2m behind improving the first tutor match, not broad paid acquisition. Tutor supply is growing far faster than bookings, 70% of tutors get no booking in a typical month, and students say finding the right tutor is their main problem. Buying more student traffic before fixing that experience risks paying to send more families into the same frustration. The encouraging signal is that students who book again show a 64% repeat rate: when a match works, there is reason to believe students stay.

The bet: a guided matching and first-booking service

Build a faster, more trusted path from a student’s need to a first lesson. Ask about subject, exam level, goals, budget, availability and preferred teaching style; then show a short, ranked list of tutors who are available and suitable—not a directory students must search alone. Make tutor profiles clearer on relevant experience and approach, and prompt tutors to respond quickly. For students who still struggle, offer human-assisted matching.

Start with the subjects and exam levels that already have the strongest demand and enough suitable tutors. Use actual enquiries, bookings, repeat behaviour and student feedback to improve recommendations. This is one integrated liquidity bet: make existing demand easier to serve with existing supply, rather than adding supply or buying broad traffic.

How we will execute

In the first 90 days, analyse the booking funnel and pilot assisted matching in a few high-demand subject/exam segments. Compare it with the current journey on first booking, time to match, cancellations and student satisfaction. In months 4–6, automate the most successful parts and improve availability and profile information. In months 7–12, expand only where the pilot improves bookings without harming quality. Help tutors without bookings improve their profiles or availability; stop actively promoting tutors who are unavailable or consistently unresponsive.

Allocate the £1.2m across the year: £450k product and data, £300k matching and student support, £250k tutor onboarding and quality, £100k testing and measurement, and £100k contingency. Release funding in stages, with a formal review after the pilot.1

What success looks like

By month 12, target 6,000 monthly bookings (up from 4,000) and at least 45% of active tutors receiving a booking in a typical month (up from 30%). Also improve first-booking conversion and time to first lesson, while maintaining or improving repeat booking, cancellation and satisfaction rates. Report results by subject and exam level so growth cannot hide weak or overloaded segments.

Hold broad paid acquisition for now. Run only small, measurable acquisition tests in segments where matching is working; scale spend only if the resulting students book and repeat at acceptable acquisition cost. If the pilot fails to improve first bookings, stop and reassess before committing the remaining funds. This gives the board a measurable growth bet while protecting our 18-month runway.

What a PM had to fix

  1. 1Invented evidenceVerify or remove the claimTargeted repair

    What we’d changeTreat £1.2m as a funding ceiling, not a spending commitment. Assuming one-hour lessons, reaching 6,000 monthly bookings adds only £12k–18k in monthly commission revenue before costs. That target alone does not justify the investment. Cost the 90-day matching pilot first; release further funding only if incremental completed bookings, repeat behaviour and service costs support a credible path to covering the investment within our financing horizon. Assess that path against actual cash burn and remaining runway before scaling.

Grades and run details

Decision model 79 · LLM judge 77
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly11%
  • passAddresses the actual decision98%
  • passRespects explicit constraints67%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty94%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims18%
  • passProduces the required deliverable94%
  • passSurfaces the central contradiction100%
  • passMakes a clear choice100%
  • passDiagnosis before prescription100%
  • partialProposes tests that could fail80%
  • failNames an advantage that's hard to copy52%
  • passSays what it gives up100%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
21 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 5

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyWrongMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Contains invented current data (7,000 dormant students, ~15% student second-booking rate) not supported by the brief or context.

GPT-6 Luna · API

All statements about the current situation are taken directly from the brief or context, with no invented facts.

Addresses the actual decisionWrongRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Does not state what result or condition would change the chosen bet.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Commits early to improving first tutor match, framed for the CEO/board, and says the pilot failing to improve first bookings would change the call.

Identifies material uncertaintyWrongRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Does not name specific unknowns that could change the decision or how they would be resolved.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Identifies that the pilot could fail and that acquisition may not be cost-effective, with conditions to stop or reassess.

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Presents causal interpretations ('paralyzed by paradox of choice', 'bloated supply is actively hurting student conversion') as established fact without labelling them as hypotheses.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Interpretations are presented as risks or inferences, not as established facts, and no unsupported factual claims are made.

Proposes tests that could failMixedWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

No kill criteria, numeric thresholds, or measurement windows are specified for any test or pilot.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The pilot gate lacks a numeric threshold for what constitutes failure to improve first bookings, only a vague 'fails to improve'.

All got wrong 1

Names an advantage that's hard to copyWrongWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Does not name a specific customer benefit and a barrier to copying; pivot to curated matching is described without explaining why it's defensible.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Does not name a hard-to-copy advantage; guided matching and profile improvements are features a well-funded competitor could replicate.

All got right 6

Respects explicit constraintsRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Within ~500 words, presents one major bet, and is addressed to CEO for the board.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Delivers a one-page strategy of about 500 words for the CEO to take to the board, respecting all stated constraints.

Produces the required deliverableRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Delivers a complete one-page strategy memo usable by the CEO for the board.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output is a complete, actionable one-page strategy for the CEO, within the word limit.

Surfaces the central contradictionRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Clearly identifies that 60% supply growth only produced 8% bookings growth, showing mismatch.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Clearly surfaces the contradiction that supply grew 60% but bookings only 8%, and 70% of tutors get no bookings.

Makes a clear choiceRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Commits to matching quality bet and names what is sacrificed (paid acquisition, new tutor onboarding).

GPT-6 Luna · API

Chooses improving the first tutor match as the one bet and explicitly forgoes broad paid acquisition.

Diagnosis before prescriptionRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

States crux as matching/conversion problem, and all major actions (curation, matching engine, two‑lesson guarantee) address it.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Diagnoses the crux as a broken matching experience that makes adding demand wasteful, and all major actions address that crux.

Says what it gives upRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

States what is given up: paid student acquisition and new tutor onboarding/delisting inactive tutors.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Names giving up broad paid acquisition and stopping promotion of unresponsive tutors as deliberate tradeoffs.

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 82% of 76 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT87.588.52None
2Haiku 5.5withAPI85.480.82None
3Sonnet 5.5withAPI87.580.82None
4GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI89.676.92None
5GPT-6 LunawithAPI83.376.92None
6Opus 5.5withClaude89.665.42None
7Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI62.557.72None
8Gemini 4 ArgonwithAPI66.753.82None
9Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini66.742.32None

What you get for the cost

Haiku 5.5 · API scores within 4 points of GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT at a fiftieth 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 88, 84× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Haiku 5.5 · API: task score 84, 1.7× the cheapestSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 83, 27× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 82, 12× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 77, the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 74, 68× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Gemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 58, 8.1× the cheapestGemini 4 Argon · API: task score 58, 12× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 52, 3.1× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTHaiku 5.5 · APISonnet 5.5 · APIGPT-6.1 Sol · APIGPT-6 Luna · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 4 Argon · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and costCost partly estimated (app runs with no usage meter)
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API771.0×
Haiku 5.5 · API841.7×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini523.1× (partly estimated)
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API588.1×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API8212×
Gemini 4 Argon · API5812×
Sonnet 5.5 · API8327×
Opus 5.5 · Claude7468× (partly estimated)
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT8884× (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

Writing a strategy memo that leadership can act on.

Why it matters

Strategy that doesn't choose isn't strategy. Models write fluent strategic prose easily; making a choice the evidence supports and naming what it gives up is harder.

What good looks like

  • Diagnoses the one obstacle that matters before prescribing
  • Makes one clear choice and names what is sacrificed
  • Grounds the choice in the supplied evidence
  • Surfaces the tension or contradiction in the data
  • Defines how we would know it is working

Deliberately not measured

  • Market sizing accuracy beyond the supplied data
  • Financial modelling
Capability tested

Choosing where to play and what not to do, from supplied evidence

The failure we’re looking for

Strategic-sounding aspirations without a diagnosis or a choice

Grading

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