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 18 graded outputs by 9 models. 33% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Asks what people did, not what they think96% pass
    Core questions ask for specific recent actions and events ('What happened next?', 'Who did you call?'), not opinions or predictions.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Why are warehouses leaving? Two execs, two theories
  2. Tests both theories fairly92% 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 signer92% 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 includes timed sections that add up to 45 minutes but does not say what to cut if time runs short, nor does it mark must-ask questions.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Why are warehouses leaving? Two execs, two theories
  2. Doesn't trust the default reason47% 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 correctly61% 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 · v1.3

The outputs

9 setups answered this brief.

Needs more than a quick edit11 of 13 checks passed

Must-ask questions aren't marked and there's no guidance on what to drop if a 45-minute call runs over. A PM would need to add priority markers and cut instructions before running the calls.

Output

TO: Crate Executive Team FROM: Staff PM DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: Research Guide: H1 Bet Allocation & Churn Investigation

---

1. Learning Goals

Our existing data is noisy. The exit survey suffers from primacy bias (“Missing features/integrations” is the first option and bundles robotics with basic APIs/ERPs). Meanwhile, our CRM shows a strong correlation between >90-day implementations and churn, and robotics appears more often in lost new-logo deals (9) than confirmed churn (3).

Over the next three weeks, these calls must uncover: 1. The "Point of No Return": When in the lifecycle did the customer mentally commit to leaving, and what specific operational event triggered it? 2. Implementation Reality: What caused the gap between the 45-day promise and the 94-day reality? Is slow implementation a root cause of churn, or a symptom of a deeper product mismatch? 3. The "Missing Integration" Truth: For those who cited integrations, what specific systems failed to connect? How many actually bought or deployed warehouse robotics? 4. Post-Churn Ground Truth: What did churned customers switch to, how long did the replacement take to go live, and are they using robotics today?

---

2. Recommended Changes to the Call Plan

To get unbiased data within 12 calls, we must adjust the proposed plan:

  • Split the persona tracks across 8–10 accounts (Don't double up on 12): If we interview both the VP and the Ops Manager separately on each account, 12 calls only covers 6 accounts (3 churned, 3 at-risk)—too small a sample. Instead, target 8 churned accounts and 4 at-risk accounts, interviewing the VP on 6 and the Ops Manager on 6 (overlapping on 2–3 accounts to cross-verify stories).
  • Drop the 5 at-risk accounts in active renewal negotiations: Interviewing customers while CS is actively negotiating discounts with them is high-risk. Economic buyers will use the call as leverage to complain about price or demand roadmap commitments, skewing the data. Replace them with 1st-year customers who took >90 days to go live (regardless of health score) or churned customers from months 9–12.
  • Ana should not lead calls with personal contacts: Ana, your relationships are invaluable for securing these interviews, so we’d love your warm intros. However, former customers who like you personally will try to spare your feelings (blaming an external trend like "we needed robotics" rather than saying "your onboarding team failed us"). A neutral PM should lead all calls; execs can join as silent observers or listen to the recordings.
  • Sample across implementation times: Ensure the 8 churned accounts include both <60-day and >90-day implementations so we don't pre-validate Bet B.

---

3. Interview Guides (45 Minutes)

#### Track A: Economic Buyer (VP of Ops / COO) — 6 Calls Focus: ROI expectations, contract promises, strategic tech stack, and the switching decision.

  • 0–3m | Intro & Legal: Thank them for their time. Emphasize that this is a product research call, not a sales/renewal call. Ask permission to record.
  • 3–10m | The Buying Thesis:
  • "Take me back to when you signed with Crate. What was broken in your warehouse that you needed us to fix?"
  • "What were your expectations for how quickly Crate would be up and running?"
  • 10–22m | The Implementation Experience:
  • "Our contract promises a 45-day go-live. Walk me through what actually happened during your rollout."
  • If delayed: "What was the single biggest bottleneck? How did that delay impact your business and your team’s trust in Crate?"
  • 22–35m | The Turning Point & Tech Stack:
  • For Churned: "When did you first realize Crate wasn't going to work out long-term? What happened that week?"
  • For At-Risk: "As you look at your operations today, where is Crate falling short of what you signed up for?"
  • "What other software or hardware did you need Crate to talk to?" (Do not mention robotics first; see if they bring it up).
  • 35–42m | The Aftermath & Automation (Probing Bet A):
  • For Churned: "What system did you move to, and how was their implementation by comparison?"
  • "Where does warehouse automation or robotics—like autonomous carts or pick-assist—fit into your current operations or 12-month plan?" (If they have them: "Did Crate's lack of integration factor into your decision to leave?")
  • 42–45m | Wrap-up: "If you were in our shoes and could fix only one thing for mid-size 3PLs over the next six months, what would it be?"

#### Track B: Daily User (Warehouse Operations Manager) — 6 Calls Focus: Day-to-day friction, rollout reality on the floor, and manual workarounds.

  • 0–3m | Intro & Legal: Set a candid, blame-free tone. Ask permission to record.
  • 3–12m | Go-Live on the Floor:
  • "Were you involved in setting up Crate? Walk me through what it took to get your first warehouse workflow live."
  • "At what point did you feel your floor staff actually trusted the system?"
  • 12–27m | Daily Friction & Workarounds:
  • "Walk me through a typical peak day using Crate. Where did the software slow your team down?"
  • "What tasks were you forced to do outside of Crate—in spreadsheets or on paper—because the software couldn't handle it?"
  • 27–38m | Equipment & Integrations:
  • "What other tools, scanners, ERPs, or floor equipment did you use alongside Crate?"
  • "Did you have to manually move data between Crate and other systems? Which ones?"
  • "Are you using any autonomous carts or robotics on the floor today, or testing them?"
  • 38–45m | The Verdict:
  • For Churned: "When leadership decided to replace Crate, was your team relieved or frustrated? Why?"
  • For At-Risk: "If you could wave a magic wand and fix one bottleneck in how Crate runs your floor tomorrow, what would it be?"

---

4. Guidance for Interviewers

1. Legal & CS Guardrails (Strict): * Always get explicit verbal consent to record at the start. * Never discuss pricing, discounts, or commercial terms. If an at-risk customer brings up their renewal, say: "I’m completely firewalled from commercial discussions so I can focus purely on product feedback. I’ll make sure your CS manager follows up on the renewal side." * Never mention our roadmap or hint that we are debating Robotics vs. Implementation. 2. Don't Lead the Witness: Do not use the words "robotics" or "94-day implementation" until the final 10 minutes of the call. Let them name the pain first. If they say "integrations," ask "Which specific tools?" before assuming they mean hardware. 3. Hunt for Past Behavior, Not Future Wishes: Discount hypothetical statements like "We’d love to look at robotics next year." Focus on concrete actions: "Did you sign a vendor contract for robots?" or "How many hours a week did your team spend fixing data imports during onboarding?" 4. Two People Per Call: One interviewer drives; one silent note-taker logs verbatim quotes and timestamps in our research repository immediately after the call.

---

5. Decision Framework: How We Will Score the Evidence

After the 12 calls, we will map the findings against this rubric to allocate the two squads:

#### What we need to hear to back Bet A (Robotics Integrations): * Active Deployment: At least 4 of the 12 accounts either actively use warehouse robotics today, are in a paid pilot, or migrated to a competitor specifically and demonstrably to connect to robotics hardware. * Retention Blocker: At-risk customers state that robotics integration is a hard requirement for their upcoming 12-month operations, not just a "nice to have" for 3 years from now. * Implementation Was Survivable: Customers who took >90 days to go live tell us that while onboarding was painful, they eventually stabilized and only left because they outgrew our automation capabilities.

#### What we need to hear to back Bet B (Rebuild Implementation): * Early "Point of No Return": Churned customers report that executive trust was broken during a drawn-out onboarding (months 2–4), and they began shopping for replacements before month 6—meaning they never reached full adoption. * Software-Fixable Bottlenecks: The reasons for the 94-day median go-live are things engineering squads can actually solve (e.g., broken data migration tools, rigid warehouse configuration, self-serve setup gaps) rather than pure services/staffing issues. * Misattributed Survey Data: When we unpack "Missing features/integrations" from the exit survey, we find customers were actually frustrated that initial setup of standard integrations took months during onboarding.

#### What we need to hear to back NEITHER (Pivot the Roadmap): * Software vs. Services on Bet B: Implementation takes 94 days because customers have messy data or our Implementation Managers are understaffed—problems solved by hiring or process changes, not two engineering squads. * A Hidden Third Driver: "Missing features/integrations" turns out to be a core software gap unrelated to robotics (e.g., 3PL billing, client portals, or basic ERP/WMS syncs like NetSuite or Shopify), while robotics is exposed as a shiny object mainly affecting a small subset of new-logo sales.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • The exit survey option 'Missing features/integrations' bundles robotics with basic APIs/ERPs

Grades and run details

Decision model 85 · LLM judge 79
Decision model checks
  • partialUses the supplied evidence correctly11%
  • passAddresses the actual decision70%
  • passRespects explicit constraints9%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty98%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims40%
  • passProduces the required deliverable83%
  • passTests both theories fairly92%
  • passDifferent questions for user and signer100%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts98%
  • passDesigned to falsify70%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think92%
  • partialDoesn't lead the witness25%
  • partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over53%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
27 s
Submitted
13 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 correctly76%
  • passAddresses the actual decision73%
  • passRespects explicit constraints43%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty95%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims45%
  • passProduces the required deliverable72%
  • passTests both theories fairly100%
  • partialDifferent questions for user and signer74%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts76%
  • passDesigned to falsify79%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think97%
  • passDoesn't lead the witness64%
  • partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over52%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
29 s
Submitted
30 Sept 2026

Needs more than a quick edit8 of 13 checks passed

The guide is strong and actionable, but it is over the word limit and contains a few unsupported factual claims that need correction before use.

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.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • The survey showed the first option gets picked more.

Grades and run details

Decision model 92 · LLM judge 57
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly10%
  • passAddresses the actual decision80%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints18%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims37%
  • passProduces the required deliverable69%
  • passTests both theories fairly98%
  • passDifferent questions for user and signer100%
  • passProtects the calls and the accounts100%
  • passDesigned to falsify73%
  • passAsks what people did, not what they think98%
  • passDoesn't lead the witness43%
  • partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over45%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
1.7 min
Submitted
30 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 correctlyWrongRightMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Claims that the exit survey option 'bundles robotics with basic APIs/ERPs' is interpretation presented as fact; the context only gives the label 'Missing features or integrations'.

GPT-6 Luna · API

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

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It invents or overstates a few current-situation facts, including 'roughly 60 churned accounts' and 'the survey showed the first option gets picked more'.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Includes all requested sections, stays under 1,500 words, addresses no-pricing/roadmap rule, recording consent, Ana's calls, and is written for the exec team.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It exceeds the 1,500-word limit and proposes replacing the at-risk cohort in a way that changes the supplied plan beyond the brief's constraints.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightRightMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Most interpretations are framed as hypotheses or things to probe; the primacy-bias point is a reasonable reading of the evidence even if stated confidently.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It presents the first-option bias and the 'roughly 60 churned accounts' figure as established facts when the supplied evidence does not support them.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

A complete research guide memo with learning goals, two timed question tracks, interviewer guidance, plan changes, and decision framework, usable by the exec team.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The guide is complete and usable, but it is over the requested length.

Different questions for user and signerRightWrongRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Track A targets the economic buyer with decision-process and ROI questions; Track B targets the daily user with floor-level friction and workaround questions, clearly differentiated.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It provides distinct 45-minute tracks for the signer and the daily operations manager.

All got wrong 1

Marks what to cut if the call runs overWrongWrongWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Sections are timed and sum to 45 minutes, but must-ask questions are not marked and there is no guidance on what to cut if the call runs over.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It provides timings but does not mark must-ask questions or say what to cut if the call runs over.

All got right 7

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Provides a clear framework with specific evidence thresholds that would back Bet A, Bet B, or neither, which is what the brief asked for in a research guide.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It gives the exec team a clear decision rule for Bet A, Bet B, or neither, with thresholds and warning signs.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Explicitly flags the exit survey as noisy, treats the 2.4× implementation-churn correlation as something to probe not assume causal, and names a third-driver possibility with concrete signals.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It names the key unknowns—timing of the leave decision, whether delay causes churn, and whether automation is a real driver—and says how calls and CRM pulls would resolve them.

Tests both theories fairlyRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Each theory gets questions that could disprove it—robotics via actual deployment status, implementation via early trust-break timing—and open questions about the leaving decision come before either theory is raised.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It gives both robotics and implementation equal chances to be disproved and leaves room for a third cause.

Protects the calls and the accountsRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Script for deflecting pricing/roadmap questions, recording consent at start, and concrete plan for Ana to do warm intros only while a neutral PM leads.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It includes recording consent, scripts for pricing/roadmap, and a concrete plan to keep Ana from leading calls with her contacts.

Designed to falsifyRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Each learning goal has a disconfirming path: e.g. 'Did Crate's lack of integration factor into your decision?' could yield 'no,' and probing actual robot deployment could show it wasn't relevant.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Each learning goal has questions that could falsify the corresponding hypothesis, such as timing, cause of delay, and unprompted automation mentions.

Asks what people did, not what they thinkRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Core questions ask about specific past events—'Walk me through what actually happened during your rollout,' 'When did you first realize,' 'What system did you move to'—not hypotheticals.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The core questions ask for specific past events, timelines, and actions rather than opinions or hypotheticals.

Doesn't lead the witnessRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Explicitly instructs interviewers not to mention robotics or '94-day implementation' until the final 10 minutes, and to let customers name the pain first; questions are open-ended.

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.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

It explicitly avoids naming robotics or implementation before the prompted check and uses neutral, open questions.

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 95% of 42 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1Sonnet 5.5withAPI88.088.52None
2GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI83.784.92None
3Opus 5.5withClaude92.074.72None
4GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT89.774.52None
5Haiku 5.5withAPI89.770.12None
6GPT-6 LunawithAPI83.773.92None
7Gemini 4 ArgonwithAPI75.670.12None
8Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI67.851.92None
9Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini63.926.121 capped

What you get for the cost

GPT-6.1 Sol · API scores within 4 points 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 87, 43× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 83, 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 78, 2.3× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 78, the cheapestGemini 4 Argon · API: task score 70, 13× the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 57, 8.3× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 42, 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 4 Argon · 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 · API781.0×
Haiku 5.5 · API782.3×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini423.0×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API578.3×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API8313×
Gemini 4 Argon · API7013×
Sonnet 5.5 · API8743×
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