Tasks / Product Craft

Customer research call guide

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

Task type v1.0 · 2 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

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

From 16 graded outputs by 8 models. 38% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Asks what people did, not what they think92% pass
    Core questions ask about specific recent actions (last boxes, skipped weeks, what they did instead) rather than opinions.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Too expensive, by default
  2. Tests both theories fairly91% pass
    Both theories get questions that could disprove them (e.g., no action on robotics, happiness after slow go-live), and open-ended timeline questions leave room for a third cause.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Why are warehouses leaving? Two execs, two theories
  3. Different questions for user and signer91% pass
    The guide has distinct tracks: daily user questions focus on day-to-day experience and workarounds, signer questions on the decision process and alternatives.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Why are warehouses leaving? Two execs, two theories

Where it slips

  1. Marks what to cut if the call runs over28% pass
    The guide has timed sections but does not mark which questions are must-ask or what to cut if time runs short.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Too expensive, by default
  2. Doesn't trust the default reason41% pass
    The plan names the pre-selected default as a bias but does not use the behaviour columns to show that most 'too expensive' cancellers had stopped cooking; it only picks two contrasting individuals without the aggregate pattern.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Too expensive, by default
  3. Uses the supplied evidence correctly64% pass
    The claim 'Customers will say what helps their negotiation' is an unsupported behavioural statement not derived from the context.
    Haiku 5.5 · API · Why are warehouses leaving? Two execs, two theories

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. Designed to falsify

    For each learning goal, does the guide include a question whose honest answer could show the team's hypothesis is wrong?

    Passes when Every learning goal has at least one disconfirming, non-leading question, such as asking about the last time they had the problem and what they did instead.

  2. Asks what people did, not what they think

    Are the core questions about specific things the person actually did recently, rather than opinions, predictions or hypotheticals?

    Passes when The core of the guide asks for recent, specific instances (the last time, what happened, what they did) and follows up on them; opinions and predictions are absent or clearly secondary.

  3. Doesn't lead the witness

    Are the questions free of leading wording, of pitching the idea, and of hints at the answer the team hopes for?

    Passes when Questions are neutral and open, and the idea is not described (or only at the very end, after the problem questions).

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 · Marks what to cut if the call runs over · and 3 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 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.

What the model was given8 items: About Crate, The decision, CEO, Ana Ferreira, CPO, Marcus Hill, Exit survey (41 churned customers, last 12 months), Implementation and CRM data, The call plan, Notes from Customer Success and Legal
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 doesThe answer key the graders mark against

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 at 40)
  • 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
Task

Staff-level · v1.1

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

Usable with a quick edit10 of 13 checks passed

A PM could quickly trim 3 minutes from the timings and add a note on what to cut if over time, and caveat the behavioural claim; the structure and reasoning are otherwise sound.

Output

Customer Interview Guide: Why Are Customers Leaving?

Owner: Staff PM | Calls: 12 × 45 min, over three weeks | Readout: before the exec decision in four weeks

1. Learning goals

  1. Timing: When did the customer first consider leaving, and what was happening then (signing, go-live, first 90 days, renewal)? This tells us whether churn is decided early or late.
  2. Reasons, in their order: What were the reasons for leaving or staying, ranked in the customer's own words, before we prompt anything?
  3. Automation: Are they automating their floor, which systems do they need Crate to connect to, and was that gap a blocker or a workaround?
  4. Implementation: Where did time go between signing and daily use, and who was waiting on whom?
  5. Alternatives: What did they evaluate instead, and what did that option do better?

2. Changes to the plan (please read before the calls start)

  1. Ana should not run calls with accounts she knows. Personal relationships make candid criticism less likely, and Ana is the sponsor of Bet A. She can provide introductions and read the notes afterward. Neutral interviewers run those four calls on accounts she doesn't manage.
  2. The plan implies 24 conversations, not 12. Each account has two contacts. I propose 12 × 45-minute calls with the operations manager on every account, plus a 20-minute executive call (VP/COO) on as many accounts as we can reach, aiming for six.
  3. Rebalance the sample. Churned accounts are 9 of the 12 calls, and the at-risk sample is weighted toward accounts in renewal talks (see point 4). Within the churned group, make sure we have at least three go-lives over 90 days and three under 90, and at least three accounts running automation and three that aren't. Without this spread, we can't tell robotics from implementation.
  4. Renewal talks distort at-risk answers. Five of six at-risk accounts are negotiating renewals with discounts on the table. Customers will say what helps their negotiation, and we can't fully control for that. Treat at-risk answers as evidence of current pain, not reasons for churn. If possible, swap two at-risk accounts for churned accounts from months 9–12 of the exit survey window.
  5. Pull data this week, not after the calls. Get churn-notice dates, go-live dates, and integration usage for all 41 churned accounts. This lets us test the timing question quantitatively.
  6. Don't treat the exit survey as proof. Missing features was the first option, the "Other" box was almost empty, and the question forced one answer. The 46% doesn't tell us it's robotics. Use these calls to check it.
  7. Agree the decision thresholds now (section 5), before we hear anything.

3. Questions and timings

Opening (3 min), verbatim: > "Before we start, may I record this? It's for internal research only, and I'll share unattributed summaries. You can stop at any point. We're not selling anything today, and I can't discuss pricing, offers, or product plans. I want to understand what happened for you."

A. Context (5 min) - Walk me through your warehouse operation and your role in it. - What does Crate do for you day to day, or what did it do before you stopped using it?

B. The timeline (12 min) Most important block. Get dates. - Walk me through the last time you were seriously considering leaving [or: seriously worried about the relationship]. When did that start? - What was happening at that point? Who was involved? - When did it become a real decision? What triggered it? - Probe for dates: "Roughly which month was that? What was going on at go-live?"

C. Reasons, unprompted (8 min) Don't mention robotics yet. - Looking back, what were all the reasons, in order of importance? - What made the difference between staying and leaving? - If we'd fixed one thing, would you have stayed? - What did you look at instead? What did it do that we didn't?

D. Automation (7 min) Only after block C. - What has changed on your floor over the past two years? Any carts, pick-assist robots, or other automation? - Which systems does Crate need to connect with? How did your team work around the gap? - Was that a blocker, or a nice-to-have? - Did anyone raise it in a renewal or evaluation discussion?

E. Implementation (8 min) - How long did it take from signing to your team using Crate daily? - Where did the time go? Who was waiting on whom? - When did your team first feel it was working?

F. Close (5 min) - If you were us, what would you fix first? - Is there anything I should have asked?

Executive variant (20 min): Spend the time on blocks A, B, and C, plus: how the decision was made and who approved it; what they evaluated; how automation fits into their operating plan for the next 12 months; and what they told their team about Crate.

At-risk variant: Replace "what made the difference between staying and leaving?" with "what's working well today and what's getting in the way?" Do not ask about renewal, pricing, or whether they plan to stay.

4. Guidance for interviewers

  • Two people per call: one leads, one takes notes. No one from Sales or Customer Success on the call.
  • Don't name robotics, the 46% figure, or our hypotheses. Don't ask leading questions ("Isn't it frustrating that…?").
  • Ask about specific past events, not hypotheticals ("Would you use…?"). Ask "What else?" until they run out.
  • Let silence work. Don't fill it.
  • Don't promise anything. If asked about features or fixes: "I'll pass that on, but I can't say what we'll build."
  • Pricing or discounts: Don't engage. Say "I can't discuss that today. I'll make sure your account team knows you raised it." Record their words verbatim and tell Customer Success after the call. CS owns the follow-up.
  • Debrief within two hours. Fill in one template: go-live and churn dates, reasons in the customer's order, whether robotics came up unprompted or after a prompt, implementation duration, and up to three verbatim quotes.

5. What we'd need to hear

Thresholds are directional. Twelve calls can't prove anything, but they can show whether a theory holds up.

Back Bet A (robotics integrations) if: - At least 5 of 12 name a specific automation system that Crate can't connect to as a primary reason for leaving or evaluating alternatives. This should come up in block C or D, not only after prompting. - At least 3 say the integration would have changed the outcome. - The decision to leave happened late in the contract, not during implementation. - Churned accounts that ran automation churned for reasons that match the exit survey.

Back Bet B (faster implementation) if: - At least 5 of 12 say the decision started during go-live or in the first 90 days. - They name specific bottlenecks: data migration, configuration, waiting on our team, or connecting to their existing systems. - At least 3 say faster go-live would have kept them. - In the pulled data, go-live time separates churned accounts from retained ones more sharply than automation does.

Back neither if: - Reasons are spread across price, service, reporting, or other issues, with no dominant theme. - Robotics comes up, but few customers have automation projects planned in the next 12 months. - Implementation was slow, but the decision to leave was made at renewal for unrelated reasons. - The real driver is weak executive sponsorship or a lack of internal champions, which neither bet addresses.

If neither bet is backed, the readout should say so directly and name the pattern that did emerge. Don't force a choice between A and B if the evidence points elsewhere. If the evidence supports both, the readout should say which has stronger support and what would change that conclusion.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Customers will say what helps their negotiation.

Grades and run details

Decision model 92 · LLM judge 79
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly1%
  • passAddresses the actual decision91%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints23%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims64%
  • passProduces the required deliverable80%
  • passTests both theories fairly98%
  • passDifferent questions for user and signer66%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts95%
  • passDesigned to falsify82%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think79%
  • passDoesn't lead the witness76%
  • partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over37%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
45 s
Submitted
8 Oct 2026

Needs more than a quick edit11 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.

Grades and run details

Decision model 92 · LLM judge 79
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly68%
  • passAddresses the actual decision92%
  • passRespects explicit constraints27%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty94%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims89%
  • passProduces the required deliverable75%
  • passTests both theories fairly99%
  • partialDifferent questions for user and signer71%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts76%
  • passDesigned to falsify77%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think68%
  • passDoesn't lead the witness65%
  • partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over50%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
29 s
Submitted
30 Sept 2026

Needs more than a quick edit7 of 13 checks passed

A PM would need to shorten it, reconcile the account plan with the 12-call constraint, and remove or relabel unsupported portfolio claims before using it.

Output

Research Guide: Root Cause Analysis for H2 Squad Allocation

Prepared by: Staff Product Manager Target Audience: Executive Team (CEO, CPO, VP CS, Head of Product) Timeline: 3 weeks of interviews; executive decision in Week 4 Scope: 12 calls (45 minutes each)

---

1. Executive Summary & Recommended Changes to the Call Plan

Before executing this sprint, we must adjust three structural flaws in the proposed plan to protect data integrity:

  1. Resolve the Account-to-Call Ratio: 12 calls cannot cover two separate stakeholders across 12 accounts. We will target 6 accounts total (3 churned, 3 at-risk) and conduct 2 distinct calls per account: one with the Warehouse Operations Manager (day-to-day user) and one with the VP of Operations/COO (economic buyer). Evaluating both perspectives within the same operational context is essential to determine whether operational failure or strategic misalignment triggered the exit.
  2. Quarantine Active Renewals: 5 of the proposed 6 at-risk accounts are actively negotiating renewals and receiving discounts. Interviewing these buyers creates an immediate incentive for them to exaggerate product flaws to gain commercial leverage. We will swap 3 of these with at-risk accounts that are not currently negotiating pricing.
  3. CEO Interview Protocol: Executive presence introduces severe confirmation and deference bias—especially with personal contacts who already know Ana's passion for robotics. Recommendation: Ana should join her 4 target calls as an executive sponsor for the first 3 minutes, then hand off lead facilitation to a Product Manager, remaining on mute as an observer. If Ana leads, she must strictly follow the non-leading script provided.

---

2. Core Learning Goals

  1. Pinpoint the Churn Decision Window: Did the customer mentally churn during the onboarding/implementation phase (Bet B), or did they leave after reaching steady-state due to technological ceilings (Bet A)?
  2. Assess Real Robotics Demand vs. Narrative: Are customers actively deploying autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) and pick-assist hardware, or is "missing robotics" a convenient, forward-looking justification for leaving an underperforming platform?
  3. Quantify the Cost of Onboarding Drag: Does exceeding the 45-day SLA directly burn operational credibility and destroy ROI, or is delay merely a symptom of customer-side disorganization?
  4. Identify False Dichotomies (Bet Neither): Determine whether churn is driven by factors neither bet solves—such as baseline software unreliability, missing core 3PL billing/EDI features, or macro 3PL volume contraction.

---

3. Interviewer Guidance & Rules of Engagement

  • Recording Consent (Mandatory): State verbatim: "Before we begin, do you mind if I record this session purely for internal note-taking? None of this will be shared externally." If declined, proceed with manual notes.
  • The "No Roadmap, No Pricing" Wall: Customers will attempt to trade feedback for commitments. If asked about features or discounting, respond: "I'm on the product research side and have no visibility into commercials or delivery timelines. My sole focus today is understanding how your operations actually run."
  • Past Behavior Over Speculation: Never ask: "Would you use a robotics integration?" (Answer is always yes). Always ask: "What automation equipment do you have physically deployed on the floor today, and how does your team interact with it?"
  • Root-Cause Probing (The "Five Whys"): When a customer says "missing integrations," do not accept the label. Ask: "What specific warehouse task were you trying to execute that stalled? What was the manual workaround?"

---

4. Interview Scripts & Timings (45 Minutes Each)

Track 1: VP of Operations / COO (Economic Buyer)

#### Part 1: Context & Operational Profile (7 mins) * How has your facility footprint and throughput profile shifted over the last 18 months? * When you initially signed with Crate, what core business metric were you held accountable for improving?

#### Part 2: Implementation & Time-to-Value (12 mins) * Walk me back to your onboarding. What was the internal sentiment between signing the contract and processing your first live pallet? * Our contract targets a 45-day go-live; our median across customers is closer to 90. Where did the process stall, and what internal operational cost did that delay create? * At what point did your leadership team feel Crate was fully operational? Did you ever reach that state?

#### Part 3: Strategic Priorities, Automation, & Feature Gaps (16 mins) * Over the past year, what capital investments have you made on your warehouse floor (e.g., conveyor belts, automated guided vehicles, pick-assist carts, manual racking)? * If automation is present: Who manufactures it, what software controls it today, and what specific data must pass between it and your WMS? * If automation is absent: What is on your signed capital expenditure plan for the next 12 months? * When you evaluated the market (or competitors), what specific capability made it clear Crate was no longer the right long-term partner? * Think back to the moment you realized this contract wouldn't renew. When did that conversation happen, and who initiated it?

#### Part 4: Decision Trace & Wrap-up (10 mins) * If Crate had delivered on every promise made during the sales cycle within 45 days, would you still be with us today? Why or why not? * What is the single biggest operational bottleneck your business faces this quarter?

---

Track 2: Warehouse Operations Manager (Daily User)

#### Part 1: Floor Reality & Daily Routine (8 mins) * Walk me through the first two hours of your shift on the floor. Where do supervisors and pickers spend the majority of their time inside Crate? * What daily tasks force your team to leave Crate and use spreadsheets, paper, or secondary systems?

#### Part 2: Go-Live Experience & Transition (12 mins) * How disruptive was the transition to Crate for your floor staff? How long did it take for pick/pack rates to recover to baseline? * During the first three months, how often did you have to escalate systemic issues to leadership? What were those issues? * Did you feel the system was configured correctly for your physical warehouse layout, or did you have to mold your workflows to fit the software?

#### Part 3: Floor Automation & Daily Bottlenecks (15 mins) * How do orders physically move through your facility today? * If pickers are assisted by any mechanical or automated equipment, where does software failure slow them down? * Have you piloted or evaluated autonomous carts or robotics on your floor? * If yes: What was the hardest operational part of that pilot? * If no: What prevents you from automating (e.g., client SKU variability, facility constraints, budget)? * If you could fix one workflow in Crate that causes your floor workers the most frustration, what would it be?

#### Part 4: The Tipping Point (10 mins) * When did your team start discussing alternative systems or workarounds? Was there a specific breaking point or system failure? * If you had a magic wand to improve your team’s pick/pack speed by 20%, what would you change about your physical setup or your software?

---

5. Decision Rubric: What We Need to Hear

At the end of Week 3, interview findings will be mapped against this falsification framework:

OutcomeEvidence Required from CallsMetric Signal from Portfolio
:---:---:---
Back Bet A<br>(Robotics Integrations)• $\ge 4$ of the 6 accounts have active capital expenditures or signed contracts with AMR/robotics vendors (e.g., Locus, 6 River).<br>• Buyers explicitly state: "We loved Crate's daily usability and onboarding was fine, but our inability to ingest AMR pick-batches forced us to migrate."<br>• Daily users identify manual cart-pushing and picker transit time as their primary throughput ceiling.CRM shows churn clustered heavily in high-volume, automated accounts; robotics surfaced in competitive losses without prompting.
Back Bet B<br>(Implementation Rebuild)• Churn decisions were made inside the first 6 months, directly traceable to operational paralysis during go-live.<br>• Buyers report: "We burned through our operational budget running parallel systems for 100+ days; our team lost trust before we ever saw value."<br>• Robotics is dismissed as an aspirational 3-year vision, not a current operational requirement.First-year logo churn represents the majority of our 18% churn rate; churn correlates directly with onboarding days exceeding 45.
Back Neither<br>(Pivot to Bet C)• Automation is negligible among these mid-sized 3PLs; go-live delays are considered standard industry friction.<br>• Churn is driven by baseline platform stability (e.g., database timeouts, inventory sync errors), missing table-stakes 3PL multi-client billing, or standard EDI connectors to Shopify/Amazon.<br>• Customers cite price-to-value disconnects: "We left because Crate charges premium rates while basic core features remain broken."Exit survey "Missing features" was a proxy for basic warehouse workflows, not robotics; churn spread evenly across all customer tenure bands.

---

6. Next Steps

  1. Day 1-2: Approve adjusted account roster (3 non-renewing at-risk, 3 churned). CS to send intro emails.
  2. Day 3-17: Conduct 12 recorded interviews. Maintain a shared executive synthesis doc updated within 24 hours of each call.
  3. Day 21: Final Decision Meeting. Present thematic evidence and allocation recommendation to Ana and Marcus.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Customers who went live after 90 days churned at 2.4× the rate of the rest in their first year.
  • CRM shows churn clustered heavily in high-volume, automated accounts.
  • Robotics surfaced in competitive losses without prompting.
  • First-year logo churn represents the majority of the 18% churn rate.
  • Churn correlates directly with onboarding days exceeding 45.
  • Exit survey 'Missing features' was a proxy for basic warehouse workflows, not robotics.
  • Churn is spread evenly across all customer tenure bands.

Grades and run details

Decision model 77 · LLM judge 50
Decision model checks
  • partialUses the supplied evidence correctly10%
  • passAddresses the actual decision91%
  • failRespects explicit constraints34%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty97%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims32%
  • passProduces the required deliverable48%
  • passTests both theories fairly82%
  • passDifferent questions for user and signer100%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts99%
  • passDesigned to falsify77%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think44%
  • partialDoesn't lead the witness38%
  • partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over50%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
37 s
Submitted
1 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 6

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedRightWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

The claim 'Customers will say what helps their negotiation' is an unsupported behavioural statement not derived from the context.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Every statement about the current situation is taken directly from the supplied context, with no invented facts.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The guide relies on several unsupported current-situation or portfolio claims, including CRM clustering, robotics surfacing without prompting, first-year churn majority, >45-day correlation, and exit-survey meaning.

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

Section 5 clearly lays out what patterns would back Bet A, Bet B, or neither, satisfying the requirement for decision signals.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It does not commit to Bet A, Bet B, or neither; it defers the decision to the research, even though the supplied evidence is not framed as insufficient to make a call.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

The output is under 1,500 words, includes all requested elements, and enforces pricing/roadmap silence with a script.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It exceeds the requested 1,500-word limit and its proposed 6-account roster would not cover the 12 accounts specified in the supplied call plan.

Avoids unsupported claimsMixedRightWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

The statement 'Customers will say what helps their negotiation' is presented as fact without caveat or support.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Interpretations like the exit survey's limitations and the 2.4× association are clearly labeled as not proving causation, not presented as established fact.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It presents several interpretations and portfolio signals as established facts or evidence, such as exit-survey meaning, churn distribution, and robotics mentions without prompting.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

It delivers a complete interview guide in the required form for the exec team, within the word limit.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output is a complete call guide with all requested sections, written for the exec team, and well under 1,500 words.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Although it is a usable interview guide, it is too long and changes the account scope in a way that does not satisfy the supplied 12-call plan.

Different questions for user and signerRightWrongRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Distinct tracks exist for the operations manager (main 45-min guide) and the executive (20-min variant focusing on decision process).

GPT-6 Luna · API

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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It provides separate tracks for the daily warehouse operations manager and the VP/COO signer, with role-appropriate questions.

All got wrong 1

Marks what to cut if the call runs overWrongWrongWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

The timed sections sum to 48 minutes, exceeding the 45-minute limit, and the guide does not mark what to cut if time runs short.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Although 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The timings add up to 45 minutes, but the number of questions is too dense for a realistic 45-minute call and there are no must-ask markers or cut-down instructions.

All got right 6

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

It explicitly treats the exit survey as weak evidence, notes the small sample cannot prove anything, and says what to do if neither bet is backed.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It names material unknowns such as timing of churn decisions, real robotics deployment, onboarding drag versus customer-side disorganization, and third causes, and proposes calls to resolve them.

Tests both theories fairlyRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Open questions on reasons come first; automation and implementation are probed separately with neutral questions, giving both theories equal chance to fail.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Both 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It gives both robotics and implementation disconfirming questions and explicitly leaves room for neither, including stability, billing/EDI, and macro causes.

Protects the calls and the accountsRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Consent is requested at the start, a script deals with pricing/roadmap inquiries, and the CEO is instructed not to run calls with accounts she knows.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It includes recording consent, a no-pricing/no-roadmap rule with a script, and a concrete protocol for Ana's calls.

Designed to falsifyRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Every learning goal includes open, non-leading questions that can yield answers disproving the team's hypotheses (e.g., asking if automation was a blocker or nice-to-have).

GPT-6 Luna · API

Every 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Each learning goal has questions that could falsify the relevant hypothesis, such as actual automation deployment, go-live timeline, and alternative causes.

Asks what people did, not what they thinkRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Core questions ask about the last time they considered leaving, what happened, and what they did, focusing on specific past events.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Core 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.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The core questions ask for recent concrete behavior, including deployed equipment, go-live experience, decision timing, and workarounds.

Doesn't lead the witnessRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Questions are neutral (e.g., 'What has changed on your floor?', 'Was that a blocker, or a nice-to-have?') and avoid pitching or hinting at desired answers.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Questions are neutral and open; the guide avoids mentioning either executive's theory until after the participant's own timeline, and prohibits leading probes.

Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The questions are mostly neutral and avoid asking customers to choose between the bets or pitching the ideas.

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 98% of 42 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1Sonnet 5.5withAPI86.188.52None
2GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI87.884.92None
3Opus 5.5withClaude92.174.72None
4GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT89.774.52None
5Haiku 5.5withAPI87.870.12None
6GPT-6 LunawithAPI81.673.92None
7Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI69.751.92None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini60.126.121 capped

What you get for the cost

GPT-6.1 Sol · API scores within a point of Sonnet 5.5 · API at a third of the cost.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.304050607080901001×3×10×30×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 86, 43× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 85, 13× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 82, 71× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 81, 66× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 77, 2.3× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 77, the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 58, 8.3× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 41, 3.0× the cheapest, 1 critical failureSonnet 5.5 · APIGPT-6.1 Sol · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTHaiku 5.5 · APIGPT-6 Luna · APIGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and costAt least one critical failure
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API771.0×
Haiku 5.5 · API772.3×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini413.0×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API588.3×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API8513×
Sonnet 5.5 · API8643×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT8166×
Opus 5.5 · Claude8271×

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

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