Tasks / Discover

Customer research call guide

Can the model write a guide that uncovers behaviour rather than opinions?

Measures the modelTask v1.0 · 2 casesDifficulty

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

From 9 graded outputs by 5 models. 50% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Identifies material uncertainty100% pass
    Names specific unknowns (cost of lateness, ease of chasing, automation fit, willingness to pay) and says mixed findings mean targeted follow-up.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Would freelancers pay to stop chasing invoices?
  2. Designed to falsify100% pass
    Every learning goal has disconfirming questions, e.g., 'What did you do next?', 'When do you avoid sending another reminder?'
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Would freelancers pay to stop chasing invoices?
  3. Asks what people did, not what they think100% pass
    Core questions ask for the most recent overdue invoice and specific actions taken, not opinions or predictions.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Would freelancers pay to stop chasing invoices?

Where it slips

  1. Fits the call33% pass
    Timings add up to 30 minutes but no must-ask questions are marked and no guidance on what to cut if time runs short.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Would freelancers pay to stop chasing invoices?
  2. Respects explicit constraints81% pass
    The guide is clearly over 900 words, violating the explicit length constraint.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Would freelancers pay to stop chasing invoices?
  3. Different questions for user and signer81% pass
    The guide does not provide distinct question tracks for the daily warehouse operations manager and the executive who signed; it only differentiates churned vs at-risk customers, with the same questions for both roles within each track.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · Why are warehouses leaving? Two execs, two theories

Case viewer

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 at Crate. In four weeks, the exec team decides which of two bets gets our two squads next half, and both bets rest on a theory of why customers are leaving. We have three weeks for 12 customer calls of 45 minutes. Write the guide for them. It should include: the learning goals; the questions, with timings, for the two kinds of people we'll talk to; guidance for whoever runs the calls; any changes you'd make to the plan below; and what we'd need to hear to back each bet, or neither. Keep it under 1,500 words. The exec team will read it before the calls start.

About CrateWarehouse management software for mid-size third-party logistics companies (3PLs). 340 customers, $22M ARR. Gross logo churn rose from 11% to 18% over the last year.
The decisionBet A: integrations with warehouse robotics (autonomous carts, pick-assist robots). Bet B: rebuild implementation so customers go live faster. Two squads for the next half go to one of them.
CEO, Ana Ferreira“We're losing warehouses because they're automating and we don't talk to their robots. Every lost customer I've spoken to mentions it.”
CPO, Marcus Hill“We lose them in the first year because implementation takes forever. They're gone before they ever see the value.”
Exit survey (41 churned customers, last 12 months)A single-choice question, 'Why are you leaving?'. Missing features or integrations: 46%. Too hard to implement: 22%. Price: 17%. Other: 15% (free-text box, left blank by all but two). 'Missing features or integrations' was the first option in the list.
Implementation and CRM dataMedian time from signing to go-live: 94 days; the contract promises 45. Customers who went live after 90 days churned at 2.4× the rate of the rest in their first year. 3 churned customers moved to a competitor with robotics integrations; robotics was cited in 9 lost new-logo deals. We don't know when in the year churned customers decided to leave.
The call plan12 calls: 6 with customers who churned in the last 9 months, 6 with at-risk customers (health score red). On each account we want to talk to the warehouse operations manager who used Crate every day and, separately, the VP of Operations or COO who signed the contract. Ana wants to run 4 of the calls with former customers she knows personally.
Notes from Customer Success and Legal5 of the 6 at-risk accounts are in renewal talks, and Customer Success is offering them discounts. Interviewers must not discuss pricing, discounts or what's on our roadmap. Every call must start by asking permission to record.
What a strong answer does

A guide that tests both theories fairly and leaves room for a third: the goals ask what actually drove each decision to leave or doubt, when it happened, and who made it, with questions that could disprove robotics (did they automate, did robots come up before they decided, what did they switch to and why) and implementation (how long go-live took, what happened in those months, whether value arrived) alike. It treats the exit survey as weak evidence (single choice, integrations listed first, 'Other' left blank) and the 2.4× figure as a correlation to probe, not a cause. The core is a timeline of the account: the story from signing to the moment they decided to leave or started doubting, with sequential probes. It has separate tracks for the daily user (what went wrong day to day) and the signer (how the decision was made, what alternatives they weighed), fits 45 minutes with timings, and opens with consent to record. It guards the calls: no pitching, pricing, discounts or roadmap promises, with a script for when an at-risk customer asks, and it addresses Ana's bias: she has a public view and personal relationships, so she should observe or take notes rather than lead, or at minimum use the same script and have her calls read separately. It ends with decision signals: what pattern across the 12 would back Bet A, what would back Bet B, and what would back neither (price, a business change, a missing capability that isn't robotics).

Critical failures (cap the score)
  • Includes questions that promise roadmap items or discuss pricing or discounts with customers in renewal talks
  • Asks customers to choose between robotics and implementation as the reason they left
Case

v1.0 · synthetic · B2B SaaS, logistics, churn, exec bias, staff-level

11 of 13 checks passed

Output

Churn Discovery Calls: Discussion Guide

For: exec team (read before calls start), interviewers, note-takers Timeline: week 0 for data pull and recruiting, weeks 1–3 for calls, week 4 for synthesis and recommendation

Why we're doing this

Both bets rest on a theory we haven't tested. The data we have can't settle it:

  • The exit survey doesn't separate the theories. "Missing features or integrations" (46%) was listed first, it was a single choice, and it combines robotics with every other feature gap. The free-text box was almost always left blank.
  • The robotics evidence is thin for churn. 3 churned customers moved to a competitor with robotics integrations. That is 3 of roughly 60 churned accounts. The 9 lost new-logo deals are about acquisition, not churn.
  • The implementation evidence is a correlation. Customers who went live after 90 days churned at 2.4× the rate. But complex customers may both take longer to go live and churn more for other reasons.
  • We don't know when or why the leave decision formed. That is the question the calls exist to answer.

Twelve calls can show us how customers decide to leave. They can't show us how many leave for each reason. The CRM pull below fills that gap, and the calls and the data should be read together.

1. Learning goals

  1. When did the leave decision form, and what triggered it? In the first months or later? During implementation, after go-live, or around an automation project?
  2. Does implementation delay cause churn, or just come with it? If delay mattered, was the cause on our side (fixable by Bet B) or on theirs (data readiness, their staffing)?
  3. Is automation a real driver? Are customers actually automating? Did Crate's lack of robot integration block them, or did it come up afterwards as a reason?
  4. Do signers and daily users tell the same story? Executives may cite strategy (automation). Operations managers may cite experience (implementation, usability).
  5. Are the reasons something else entirely? For example: price, support, acquisition, consolidation, or a non-robotics feature gap.

2. Changes to the plan

1. Pull CRM data in week 0, before the first call. For every account that churned in the last 12 months, pull: - tenure at churn - days from signing to go-live - whether they run or were deploying automation (ask CS and account managers) - where they went

Also answer one question: did the rise from 11% to 18% churn come from first-year customers? If it did, that supports Bet B. If the increase is among long-tenured accounts, that points toward Bet A. This may be the most decisive single fact we get, and it costs a day.

2. Replace at-risk accounts that are in renewal talks. Five of the six are negotiating discounts. They have a reason to exaggerate complaints, and a call with them could easily drift into pricing. Use red-health accounts that are not in active renewal. If there aren't enough of those, add churned accounts instead.

3. Fix the call count. The plan says 12 calls, but two people on each of 12 accounts is 24 calls. Within the 12, I propose 8 accounts:

GroupAccountsWho we interviewCalls
Churned, paired4Signer and ops manager, separately8
Churned, signer only2Signer2
At-risk, not in renewal2Signer2
  • Split the churned accounts so that 3 left in their first year and 3 left later.
  • Include at least one account that moved to a competitor with robotics integrations.
  • Signers get priority because they made the decision.
  • The paired accounts let us compare what the signer says with what the daily user saw.
  • If we can fund 24 calls, pair every account.

4. Ana should not interview her own contacts. Anyone will soften or reshape their story when the CEO asks, especially a CEO they know and whose view they may already have heard. Her contacts also aren't a random sample of the people who left.

My suggestion: - Her contacts can enter the pool if they fit the sampling groups, but a neutral interviewer runs those calls. - Ana and Marcus both listen to the recordings. - If Ana wants to speak with former customers personally, those calls are valuable for the relationship. We run them in addition to the 12 and don't count them as research.

The same rule applies to Marcus: neither exec interviews.

5. Offer a thank-you gift to former customers, such as a gift card. It must not be a credit or discount on Crate.

3. Discussion guide: VP Ops / COO (signer), 45 minutes

0–3 min · Opening - Ask permission to record. If they say no, don't record and take notes only. - Say: "This isn't a sales call. I can't discuss pricing or our product plans. I'm here to understand your experience, good and bad."

3–8 min · Context - "Tell me about your business and how it's changed over the last two years." - "What were your biggest operational priorities this past year?"

8–22 min · The decision story (the core of the call) - Churned: "Take me back to the first moment you started to wonder whether Crate was right for you. What was going on?" - At-risk: "Tell me about the last time you seriously questioned renewing." - Build a timeline with follow-ups: - "When was that, relative to signing?" - "What happened next?" - "Who else was involved?" - "What alternatives did you look at?" - "When was the decision final?" - "What finally tipped it?"

22–30 min · Expectations and early months - "When you signed, what did you expect Crate to do for you, and by when?" - "How did going live compare to what you expected?" - "When, if ever, did you first see the value you signed up for?"

30–37 min · Operational direction - "What investments in the warehouse have you made or planned: equipment, systems, staffing?" - "What did you need your WMS to do as part of those?" - If they mention automation: "How did Crate fit, or not? What did you do about it?"

37–42 min · Prompted check - Hand over a card of possible reasons: implementation time, robotics/automation integration, other missing features, ease of use, support, price, business change. - Rotate the order on every call. The survey showed the first option gets picked more. - Ask: "Pick the top three for you." Then: "Which one, if it had been different, would have changed the outcome?"

42–45 min · Close - "What should I have asked?" - "Who else should we talk to?" - Thank them.

4. Discussion guide: Warehouse operations manager, 45 minutes

0–3 min · Opening - Same as the signer call: recording permission and ground rules.

3–10 min · Daily work - "Walk me through a typical day using Crate." - "What other tools or spreadsheets did you use alongside it?"

10–22 min · Implementation story - "Tell me what happened from signing to go-live." - "What took longest?" - "What were you waiting on, and who was it waiting on?" - "When did it start working the way you needed?" - Get specific episodes, not a verdict. Always ask whether a delay came from us, from them, or from a third party.

22–32 min · Gaps and workarounds - "Tell me about the last time Crate got in your way." - "What equipment or automation runs on your floor? How does information move between it and Crate?" - "What manual steps did that create?"

32–37 min · The decision - "Were you part of the decision to leave or renew? What would you have told leadership?"

37–42 min · Prompted check - Same card as the signer call, with a new random order.

42–45 min · Close - Same as the signer call.

5. Guidance for interviewers

Stay neutral - Don't say "robotics," "automation," or "implementation" before the prompted check, unless the interviewee says it first. What people raise unprompted is our strongest evidence. - Ask about specific past events ("the last time…", "walk me through…"), not opinions or hypotheticals. Treat "we'd have stayed if you'd had X" as weak evidence. - Use their words, not ours. Don't correct them or defend Crate. - In paired accounts, use different interviewers where possible. Never tell the second person what the first one said.

Stay within the rules from Legal and CS - Pricing or discounts: "That's outside what I can cover today. I'll let your account team know you'd like to discuss it." Then tell CS. - Roadmap: "I can't speak to product plans, but I'll make sure what you've said reaches the people who make them." Never promise a feature. - If there's no recording consent, don't record. The note-taker writes verbatim quotes where possible.

Process - A note-taker joins every call. - Within 24 hours, fill in the debrief template: - primary reason, in their words - the decision timeline, with the month the doubt started - robotics raised unprompted? (Y/N) - implementation raised unprompted? (Y/N) - was the delay caused by us, them, or both? - top three from the card - the best quote - Hold a 30-minute team review of the debriefs every Friday.

6. What would back each bet

Each account gets classified by its primary cause, meaning the thing that started or tipped the decision. When signer and ops manager disagree, record both views; don't average them.

Back Bet A (robotics) if: - In at least 3 of the 6 churned accounts, automation was raised unprompted and came before the leave decision. - The customer had a live or funded automation project that Crate blocked or made harder. - Ops managers describe concrete workarounds between robots and Crate. - The CRM pull shows churn concentrated in longer-tenured accounts, with meaningfully more automating churners than the 3 we already know about. - Warning sign: robotics only comes up at the card, or appears in the timeline after the decision was already made. That suggests it's a justification, not a cause.

Back Bet B (implementation) if: - In at least 3 of the 6 churned accounts, doubt formed during or soon after a slow implementation, often phrased as "never saw the value" or "lost confidence." - Ops managers put the main delays on our side: our process, staffing, data migration, or configuration. Those are what a rebuild would fix. - The CRM pull shows the rise in churn comes mostly from first-year customers. - Warning sign: delays were mostly on the customer's side (their data wasn't ready, they didn't have staff). A faster process on our end would then help less than the 2.4× figure suggests.

Back neither if: - Primary causes are spread across several reasons with no clear lead, such as price, support, consolidation or acquisition, or a feature gap unrelated to robotics. - Or signers and ops managers consistently tell different stories that neither bet addresses.

In that case, I'd recommend a smaller fix aimed at whichever cause leads, plus a better-designed exit survey, rather than committing two squads on a weak signal.

If both show up: check whether automating customers are also the ones with the slowest implementations. If they are, those customers' problem is really integration work during setup, and the recommendation should address that directly instead of forcing a choice between A and B.

In week 4, I'll bring the exec team a one-page summary that combines the call findings with the CRM figures, a recommendation, and our confidence in it.

Check by check

Mixed · 2
  • Respects explicit constraintsThe two graders disagreed on this one.
  • Fits the callThe two graders disagreed on this one.
Got right · 11
  • Uses the supplied evidence correctly
  • Addresses the actual decision
  • Identifies material uncertainty
  • Avoids unsupported claims
  • Produces the required deliverable
  • Tests both theories fairly
  • Different questions for user and signer
  • Protects the calls and the accounts
  • Designed to falsify
  • Asks what people did, not what they think
  • Doesn't lead the witness

Grades and run details

Decision model 92
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly8%
  • passAddresses the actual decision20%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints25%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims71%
  • passProduces the required deliverable81%
  • passTests both theories fairly99%
  • passDifferent questions for user and signer100%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts99%
  • passDesigned to falsify76%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think92%
  • passDoesn't lead the witness43%
  • partialFits the call32%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
1.7 min
Submitted
30 Sept 2026

Needs more than a quick edit10 of 13 checks passed

The guide lacks separate question tracks for the daily user and the decision-maker, and it doesn't prioritize questions for time management. A PM would need to add role-specific questions and mark must-asks, which is more than a quick edit.

Output

Crate customer research guide: why are warehouses leaving?

Purpose: In three weeks, learn whether churn is more plausibly driven by missing robotics integrations (Bet A), slow implementation (Bet B), or something else. These calls are for understanding customers’ experiences—not selling, negotiating renewals, or validating either executive’s theory.

Learning goals

For each account, establish:

  • What happened, and when? Separate implementation, go-live, first value, automation needs, and the point when leaving became likely or decided.
  • What mattered most? Distinguish a decisive problem from a feature request, contributing frustration, or reason offered after the fact.
  • What evidence supports the explanation? Look for actual workflow impact, workarounds, alternatives evaluated, and actions taken—not just opinions or hypotheticals.
  • What might change the outcome? Explore credible counterfactuals without promising anything.
  • What else explains churn? Surface causes beyond A and B.

Recommended plan changes

The proposed 12 calls cannot cover both the daily user and contract signer on all 12 accounts: that would require 24 interviews. Keep the 12-call cap, but interview two roles separately at each of six accounts: three churned accounts and three red-health accounts, with one warehouse operations manager and one VP of Operations/COO per account. This gives paired perspectives and preserves both customer situations, but is a small, directional sample—not a prevalence estimate. Select accounts for varied implementation times and automation situations where possible; don’t choose only accounts with known robotics issues.

Do not have Ana conduct four calls with former customers she knows personally. Her involvement risks courtesy bias and leading the conversation. Use an independent interviewer; ideally don’t include personal contacts in this small core sample. If one is included, disclose the relationship, and have Ana neither attend nor receive attributable notes.

Because five at-risk accounts are in renewal talks and receiving discount offers, use an interviewer outside the account/renewal team. Tell participants their answers won’t affect service or renewal discussions. Don’t share interview content with the account team in a way that could be used in negotiation. Follow Legal’s recording requirement below.

45-minute guide: churned customers

TimeQuestions
0–3Start by asking: “May I record this conversation?” If no, take notes instead. Explain the purpose, that there are no sales or renewal implications, and that we won’t discuss pricing, discounts, or roadmap.
3–7“What was your role in choosing and using Crate?” “What did your warehouse need the system to help you do?”
7–18“Take me through your experience with Crate, from signing through the decision to leave.” “When did you first consider switching? What happened just before that?” “Who was involved, and when was the decision effectively made?”
18–27“How did implementation and go-live go?” “Where, if anywhere, did it take longer or require more effort than expected?” “What was the impact on your operation?” “When did you first get value from Crate?”
27–35“Did automation or robotics play a role in your warehouse during this period?” If yes: “What equipment or workflow?” “How did it work with Crate?” “What did you do when it didn’t?” “When did this become a problem relative to the decision to leave?”
35–41“What alternatives did you consider, and what drove the choice?” “What, if anything, could realistically have changed your decision?” “What was the most important reason—not just one frustration?”
41–45“What haven’t I asked that matters?” “Is there anything we should correct about our understanding?” Thank them.

45-minute guide: red-health customers

Use the same opening and close. Do not imply that Crate can fix an issue or influence renewal terms.

TimeQuestions
0–3Start by asking: “May I record this conversation?” If no, take notes. Explain that this is research, not a sales or renewal conversation; participation won’t affect service or renewal discussions.
3–7“What is your role in using or overseeing Crate?” “What does a successful warehouse operation look like for you?”
7–17“How has your experience with Crate unfolded so far?” “When have things gone better or worse than expected?” “What is working well today?”
17–27“Where are you in implementation and go-live?” “What has taken the most effort or time?” “What value, if any, have you realized so far?” “What is the operational impact of anything that remains difficult?”
27–35“How, if at all, does automation or robotics fit into your operation?” If relevant: “What equipment or workflow?” “How does it work with Crate today?” “What workarounds do you use?” “When did this become important?”
35–41“Have you considered alternatives to Crate? What prompted that, if so?” “What would need to be true for Crate to work well for your operation?” “What are the most important unresolved issues?”
41–45“What haven’t I asked that matters?” “Is there anything we should correct?” Thank them.

Guidance for interviewers

  • Ask the questions as written, but follow the participant’s timeline. Use neutral probes: “What happened next?” “Can you give me an example?” “How do you know?”
  • Don’t offer Ana’s or Marcus’s theories, mention the exit-survey results, or ask leading questions such as “Would robots have saved you?” Ask about events before asking for interpretations.
  • Separate when an issue occurred from when the participant says it mattered. Probe for specific actions and evidence: evaluations, workarounds, escalations, or a switch decision.
  • Don’t discuss pricing, discounts, renewal negotiations, or roadmap. If asked about roadmap, say you can’t speak to future plans. Don’t make promises or relay an interview answer as a renewal signal.
  • Interview roles separately. Record role and account context in notes, but distinguish direct experience from second-hand views. Afterward, write a short timeline, leading cause(s), evidence, and uncertainties for each account.
  • Treat recordings and notes as confidential; use only with consent and Legal-approved handling. Don’t present anecdotes as representative of all customers.

What would support each bet?

Support Bet A (robotics integrations): In multiple independent accounts, a specific robotics workflow or integration gap caused meaningful operational friction, and that issue arose before the decision to leave or seriously consider leaving. Stronger evidence: an actual robot deployment or concrete plan, a costly workaround, and a competitor selected or evaluated for this capability. A feature mention alone—or robotics cited in a new-logo deal—doesn’t establish that it drove existing-customer churn.

Support Bet B (faster implementation): In multiple accounts, implementation delays or effort materially postponed go-live or first value, caused operational consequences, and preceded the decision to leave or consider leaving. Stronger evidence: specific preventable blockers, an unmet expectation, and a credible account that earlier go-live would have changed the outcome. The 94-day median, 45-day promise, and 2.4× association make this worth testing, but do not prove causation.

Support neither / remain uncertain: The call evidence points more strongly to another cause; A or B appears only after the decision; accounts describe issues without meaningful consequences; or evidence is mixed and no cause consistently precedes churn. Don’t force a winner from 12 interviews. Compare patterns across accounts, not individual interview counts, and triangulate with CRM timelines and other churn evidence. The exit survey’s single-choice format, first-listed feature option, and sparse free text limit what it can establish.

Check by check

Got wrong · 2
  • Different questions for user and signerThe guide does not provide distinct question tracks for the daily warehouse operations manager and the executive who signed; it only differentiates churned vs at-risk customers, with the same questions for both roles within each track.
  • Fits the callAlthough timed sections add up to 45 minutes, the guide does not mark must-ask questions or say what to cut if time runs short, so an interviewer could run out of time without covering the most critical probes.
Mixed · 1
  • Addresses the actual decisionThe guide clearly states what evidence from the calls would back Bet A, Bet B, or neither, which is the decision framework the exec team needs.The two graders disagreed on this one.
Got right · 10
  • Uses the supplied evidence correctlyEvery statement about the current situation is taken directly from the supplied context, with no invented facts.
  • Respects explicit constraintsThe guide respects all constraints: it includes learning goals, timed questions for both customer types, interviewer guidance, plan changes, and decision signals; it stays under 1,500 words; it enforces no pricing/roadmap discussion and recording consent.
  • Identifies material uncertaintyIt names key unknowns (exit survey weakness, correlation vs causation, timing of churn decision) and says how the calls will resolve them through patterns and timelines.
  • Avoids unsupported claimsInterpretations like the exit survey's limitations and the 2.4× association are clearly labeled as not proving causation, not presented as established fact.
  • Produces the required deliverableThe output is a complete call guide with all requested sections, written for the exec team, and well under 1,500 words.
  • Tests both theories fairlyBoth the robotics and implementation theories get questions that could disprove them, open timeline questions come first, and the guide explicitly leaves room for a third cause.
  • Protects the calls and the accountsIt gives a clear rule and script for pricing/roadmap questions, starts with recording consent, and addresses Ana's bias by recommending she not lead calls and, if a contact is included, that she not attend or receive attributable notes.
  • Designed to falsifyEvery learning goal has questions whose honest answers could disprove the hypothesis, such as asking when automation became a problem relative to the decision to leave.
  • Asks what people did, not what they thinkCore questions ask for specific past events and actions (e.g., 'When did you first consider switching? What happened just before that?'), with opinions and predictions clearly secondary.
  • Doesn't lead the witnessQuestions are neutral and open; the guide avoids mentioning either executive's theory until after the participant's own timeline, and prohibits leading probes.

Grades and run details

Decision model 85 · LLM judge 11 of 14 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly81%
  • failAddresses the actual decision50%
  • passRespects explicit constraints26%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty95%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims91%
  • passProduces the required deliverable73%
  • passTests both theories fairly99%
  • partialDifferent questions for user and signer74%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts79%
  • passDesigned to falsify75%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think70%
  • passDoesn't lead the witness55%
  • partialFits the call29%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
29 s
Submitted
30 Sept 2026

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task, across all cases 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 AstrawithChatGPT95.892.31None
2GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI92.192.62None
3Opus 5.5withClaude94.169.22None
4Sonnet 5.5withAPI86.484.62None
5GPT-6 LunawithAPI90.273.921 capped

About the task

The PM job

Preparing for customer calls.

Why it matters

Leading questions produce the answers you wanted. A good guide is designed to prove you wrong.

What good looks like

  • Past-behaviour questions
  • No leading prompts
  • Clear learning goals
  • Could disprove the team's hypothesis

Deliberately not measured

    Capability tested

    Question design

    The failure we’re looking for

    Hypothetical, leading questions

    Grading

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