Usable with a quick edit10 of 12 checks passed
The guide is well-structured and evidence-based; a PM could add a note on what to cut if time runs short and the aggregate data point about 'too expensive' cancellers in a quick edit.
Output
Aim and guardrails
Understand the sequence leading to cancellation, not ask subscribers to vote on executives’ theories. Test price, repetition, and delivery alongside an alternative: subscribers never established—or lost—a workable cooking routine, making unused food feel expensive.
The cancellation form is weak evidence: price is first and preselected, only one answer is allowed, and comments sometimes conflict with selections. The first-month cooking gap—81% of retained subscribers versus 34% of cancellers cooking at least three recipes weekly—is an important association, not proof of causation. Last-four-week cooking counts cannot identify first-month activation.
Recruit these six
Use purposive contrasts, not a representative sample. Counts below mean weeks subscribed / skips in last six weeks / recipes cooked in last four weeks.
| Primary recruit | Evidence | Why this interview; backup |
|---|---|---|
| S-8003 | 29 / 3 / 2; price selected; “kept piling up in the fridge” | Distinguish affordability from paying for unused food; reconstruct whether disengagement preceded price concerns. Backup: S-8093. |
| S-8056 | 29 / 1 / 12; price selected; “cheaper at the supermarket” | Same tenure as S-8003, much higher recent cooking. Strong contrast for genuine price pressure despite use; supermarket comparison is not evidence of competitor discounting. Backup: S-8096. |
| S-8000 | 47 / 3 / 0; repetition selected; “kept piling up in the fridge” | Test whether menu fatigue caused declining use, or whether routine/quantity problems came first. Backup: S-8209. |
| S-8072 | 23 / 1 / 8; delivery problems selected; no comment | Explore an operational explanation among someone still cooking relatively often. Establish whether the problem was lateness, something else, and consequential enough to trigger cancellation. Backup: S-8179. |
| S-8024 | 6 / 5 / 1; other selected; “kept piling up in the fridge” | Short-tenure, high-skipping case outside executive labels: explore onboarding, quantity, expectations, and routine formation. Backup: S-8131. |
| S-8037 | 33 / 0 / 5; moving/travelling selected; no comment | Contrast with frequent skippers; examine life circumstances, whether the label fits, and why cancel rather than skip. Backup: S-8215. |
Contact primaries immediately; approach backups if unavailable or declining. Offer the same fixed incentive regardless of feedback. Invite them to discuss “your experience using and stopping Sprig,” without naming hypotheses. Confirm they managed the subscription or cooking; do not screen for agreement with a theory.
Before calls, verify metric definitions, subscription dates, and available delivery history. Skipping reduces opportunities to cook; raw cooking counts are not cooking rates. Schedule three calls Tuesday, three Thursday, with debrief time.
Shared 30-minute interview guide
0–2 minutes: introduction
“We’re learning how Sprig fitted into your life and what led you to stop. This isn’t a sales call; honest criticism is useful. You can skip questions or stop. May we record for research notes?”
2–6: expectations and early use
- “What was happening in your life when you signed up?”
- “What did you hope Sprig would replace or make easier?”
- “Walk me through an early delivery: who cooked, what got cooked, and what happened to the rest?”
- “How typical was that during your first month?”
6–15: reconstruct the change
- “Walk me through your last few weeks with Sprig.”
- “Tell me about the last box you received—from arrival to what happened to each meal.”
- “When did you first consider stopping? What happened just before that?”
- “Was there a time it worked better? What changed?”
- “Tell me about a week you skipped, if any. What drove that decision?”
Anchor memories to deliveries or calendar events; accept “I don’t remember.”
15–20: cancellation and alternatives
- “Tell me about the day you cancelled. Why then?”
- “What had you already tried?”
- “What options did you consider, including skipping?”
- “What have you actually done for meals since?”
20–27: test explanations, only after the unaided story
Ask everyone: - “How did the cost fit your budget and what you got from it?” Probe actual alternatives, prices or discounts used—not hypothetical willingness to pay. - “How did recipe choice change over time?” Request specific examples and timing. - “How did deliveries fit your plans?” If problems arose: promised versus actual arrival, consequences, frequency, and attempted resolution. - Then show their selected reason/comment: “How well does this capture what happened? What’s missing?”
27–30: confirm
Summarize the sequence, separating ongoing frustrations from the final trigger. “What have I misunderstood? What else mattered?”
Support and synthesis
Pair each novice with an experienced observer; rehearse Monday. Use silence and “Tell me about a specific time,” not suggested answers. Never defend Sprig or pitch fixes.
After each call, record timeline, supporting examples, contradictions, and unknowns separately from interpretation. Friday, compare cases across all explanations, explicitly noting disconfirming evidence. Report mechanisms and next validation steps—not churn percentages or causal conclusions from six interviews.
Grades and run details
Decision model 83 · LLM judge 85
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly29%
- passAddresses the actual decision47%
- partialRespects explicit constraints38%
- partialIdentifies material uncertainty43%
- passAvoids unsupported claims75%
- passProduces the required deliverable57%
- partialDoesn't trust the default reason47%
- passRecruits from the data99%
- passDesigned to falsify73%
- passAsks what people did, not what they think89%
- passDoesn't lead the witness72%
- partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over55%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 33 s
- Submitted
- 5 Oct 2026