Needs more than a quick edit10 of 12 checks passed
The output fails to show that most 'Too expensive' cancellers had stopped cooking, a key insight from the data, and does not mark what to cut if the call runs over. A PM would need to re-analyze the data and add cut instructions.
Output
Churn interviews: recruiting plan and guide
What the data tells us
- The form can't be trusted. "Too expensive" is pre-selected and listed first, and roughly half of cancellers have it. Many of those cooked heavily or wrote free text about something else. Treat the selected reason as a lead, not an answer.
- Cancellers look like two groups, whatever they ticked.
- Fading: 3-5 skipped deliveries and 0-2 recipes cooked in 4 weeks. Their free text is mostly "piling up in the fridge", "too much food for two" and "no time", which is about quantity and routine. That fits none of the three exec theories directly.
- Still cooking: 0-1 skips and 6-12 recipes. Many of them ticked price, and almost all the delivery complainers sit here.
- Caveat: the retained-vs-churned stat (first-month cooking) isn't the same measure as the CSV (last 4 weeks), so I can't tell yet whether the fading group never built the habit or lost it. The calls should find out.
Six calls can't size anything. The aim is to find out what's really behind each pattern, so we can fix the form and then measure.
Who to recruit
| # | Subscriber | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | S-8005 (price, 20 wks, 5 skips, 0 cooked, "too much food for two") | Fading group with a default-looking price tick. Tests whether the real issue is portion size or cadence. |
| 2 | S-8056 (price, 29 wks, 1 skip, 12 cooked, "cheaper at the supermarket") | Heavy user with a price complaint. This is the best test of whether the CEO's theory holds. |
| 3 | S-8141 (price, 15 wks, 0 skips, 12 cooked, no text) | Heavy user, price tick, no explanation. Likely clicked the default. What was the real reason? |
| 4 | S-8133 (repetitive, 45 wks, 1 skip, 3 cooked, no text) | Long-tenure subscriber with no competing explanation, so a fair test of the Head of Food's theory. |
| 5 | S-8097 (delivery, 2 wks, 10 cooked) | Cooked almost every recipe, then left in week 2. Tests whether delivery or the first-box experience is the issue. |
| 6 | S-8062 (moving/travelling, 36 wks, 0 skips, text: "kept piling up") | Tests whether travel was the cause or a polite exit, and whether a pause would have kept them. |
Recruit a backup for each slot with a similar profile: S-8008, S-8090, S-8196, S-8153, S-8091 and S-8025. The Head of Ops' theory gets one slot because delivery complainers are few and look different from the rest.
Running the calls
- Pair each new interviewer with an experienced one. One leads and one takes notes, and they swap roles on the next call.
- New interviewers should lead calls 2 and 3, which are the least delicate.
- Spend 10 minutes after each call writing the cancellation story in three lines and noting which exec theory it supports, contradicts or ignores.
Interview guide (30 min)
Rules for new interviewers 1. Ask open questions and then stay quiet. Silence gets more than prompting. 2. Don't mention price, recipes or delivery first. Let them raise it. 3. Ask for specific events ("the last box"), not opinions ("what do you generally think?"). 4. Don't defend Sprig, don't pitch, and don't ask "would you come back if…?" People answer hypotheticals unreliably. 5. Follow up with "Tell me more", "What happened next?" and "Can you give me an example?"
1. Open (0-3 min) "Thanks for talking to us. We're trying to learn, not win you back, and nothing you say is wrong. Can we record for note-taking?"
2. Context (3-8 min) - "Who did you cook for? Tell me about a typical week of eating before Sprig." - "What made you sign up? What did you hope it would do for you?"
3. Timeline (8-20 min), the core of the call - "Take me through your first few weeks." (Probe: how many recipes did you cook, and what did it feel like?) - "Tell me about the last box you received. What happened to it, from the doorstep onwards?" - "When did you first think about cancelling? What was going on that week?" - "What did you do for meals instead?" - "Did you think about skipping a week instead? What happened with that?"
4. Only if not raised unprompted (20-26 min) - Cost: "How did the cost sit with you, and compared with what?" - Food: "How did you feel about the recipes over time? Any you made again or avoided?" - Delivery: "What was getting the box like?"
5. The form (26-29 min) Show what they selected. "You chose '[reason]'. What was going through your mind? Does it capture it?" For #2, #3 and #6, add: "Is there anything else that mattered more?"
6. Close (29-30 min) - "If you could change one thing about Sprig, what would it be?" - "Is there anything I should have asked and didn't?"
Tailored probes - #1: "Tell me about the week you had too much food. What did you do with it?" - #2: "Where did you do the comparison, and what exactly was cheaper?" - #3: "You were cooking a lot. What changed?" - #4: "Describe a week when you didn't feel like any of the recipes." - #5: "Walk me through your first delivery." - #6: "Could you have paused? Did you know that?"
After the calls
Review all six together and note which exec theories were supported, contradicted or absent. Separately, remove the default selection from the cancel form now, so the next batch of data is cleaner.
Grades and run details
Decision model 88 · LLM judge 77
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly17%
- passAddresses the actual decision57%
- passRespects explicit constraints24%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty45%
- partialAvoids unsupported claims24%
- passProduces the required deliverable57%
- partialDoesn't trust the default reason30%
- passRecruits from the data99%
- passDesigned to falsify70%
- passAsks what people did, not what they think83%
- passDoesn't lead the witness66%
- partialMarks what to cut if the call runs over39%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 51 s
- Submitted
- 6 Oct 2026