Humanity’s Last PRD
Latest drop: Gemini 4 Argon · 13 Oct
Tasks / Leadership

Write a stakeholder update

Can the model turn messy project status into an honest update that leads with what the reader needs to know or decide?

Task type v1.2 · 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. 50% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Reports outcomes and learning, not just output100% pass
    It leads with outcome metrics (ARR, support, usage) and reports a key learning (pipeline jump is a definition change, not demand growth), not just activities.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · On track, mostly
  2. Leads with the honest headline100% pass
    First slide headline includes the retention drop alongside the new-ARR beat, not just 'record quarter'.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · A quarterly business review deck, in brand
  3. A real 7-slide deck100% pass

Where it slips

  1. Uses the supplied evidence correctly51% pass
    The year 2026 is not in the supplied context; all other factual claims are supported.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · A quarterly business review deck, in brand
  2. Owns the problem53% pass
    Does not state what the team has already done about the payments reliability miss or the NPS drop; only reports the problems.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · A quarterly business review deck, in brand
  3. Flags the redefined pipeline58% pass
    It names the redefinition but does not give the falling like-for-like trend (e.g., pipeline fell from $2.41M to $2.23M on the old definition).
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · On track, mostly

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. Asks leaders only for the big calls

    Does the update separate the decisions it needs from its readers (hard to reverse, high stakes) from the ones the team will make itself, and ask clearly for the former?

    Passes when Names the decisions it needs from the readers, with a recommendation and a date, and says which calls the team is making itself.

    Geoff CharlesLenny’s Podcast

  2. Reports outcomes and learning, not just output

    Does the update report progress as movement on the outcomes the team is accountable for and what it has learned, rather than as features shipped or dates hit?

    Passes when Leads with the outcome metrics and what changed in the team's understanding, with shipping as supporting detail.

    Melissa PerriLenny’s PodcastChristian IdiodiLenny’s Podcast

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 · Owns the problem · Ready for the reader as delivered · and 2 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 the Head of Product at Cobalt. Write this fortnight's update for the CEO and the exec team, in no more than 450 words, from the weekly metrics and the team notes below. It should say where we stand, what's wrong, what we're doing about it, and what you need from them.

What the model was given3 items: About Cobalt, weekly_metrics_weeks_1_to_8.csv, team_notes.md
About CobaltTeam scheduling software, sold per seat.
weekly_metrics_weeks_1_to_8.csv8 rows · Download
week,new_arr_signed_usd,qualified_pipeline_usd,weekly_active_teams,support_backlog_tickets,support_sla_met_pct
1,182000,2410000,8210,140,96
2,205000,2380000,8260,152,95
3,168000,2350000,8240,171,94
4,214000,2290000,8300,198,91
5,199000,2230000,8280,260,86
6,221000,3140000,8310,344,79
…
team_notes.md7 lines · Download
# Notes from the teams

- Sales ops: from week 6, "qualified pipeline" includes active free trials over 10 seats (they used to be excluded).
- Data: weekly active teams for week 7 is missing because of a pipeline outage; it's being backfilled.
- Support: the backlog grew after the September pricing change (tickets about invoices doubled). SLA target is 90% answered within one business day.
- Quarter target: $2.4M new ARR in 12 weeks ($200,000 a week). Weeks 1 to 8 total: see the file.
- Support hiring: two agents approved, start date not set. Decision needed: whether to pause the planned price change for existing customers in week 10 until the backlog is cleared.
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Leads with the takeaway: new ARR is ahead of plan ($1.67M in eight weeks against $1.6M), but support is breaking and pipeline is weaker than it looks. Flags that the jump in qualified pipeline in week 6 (from about $2.23M to $3.14M) is the redefinition to include large trials; on the old definition pipeline fell every week from $2.41M to $2.23M, a risk for the rest of the quarter. Reports the support problem plainly: backlog from 140 to 455 tickets and SLA from 96% to 72% against a 90% target since the September pricing change, with what's being done (two agents approved). Notes week 7's active teams are missing and being backfilled rather than hiding it. Asks for the decisions that need the execs: pause the week-10 price change for existing customers until the backlog clears, and set the start date for the support hires. Separates what the team is handling from what needs them.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Presents qualified pipeline as having grown about 40%
Task

Staff-level · v1.1

The outputs

9 setups answered this brief.

GPT-6 AstraChatGPT98Usable with a quick editSonnet 5.5API94Usable with a quick editGPT-6.1 SolAPI88Usable with a quick editHaiku 5.5API85Needs more workOpus 5.5Claude77Needs more workGPT-6 LunaAPI75Usable with a quick editGemini 4 ArgonAPI73Needs more workGemini 3.8 FlashAPI65Needs more workGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini56Needs more work
Gemini 4 ArgonAPI

Needs more than a quick edit9 of 12 checks passed

The output contains an unsupported claim about product and support auditing invoice layouts that is not in the source material. A PM would need to verify or remove it before sending.

Output

Subject: Product Fortnightly Update – Weeks 7 & 8

Where We Stand * New ARR: We are tracking ahead of our Q3 target ($2.4M over 12 weeks, or $200k/week). Through Week 8, we have signed $1,673,000 in new ARR (averaging ~$209k/week). Momentum is strong, with Weeks 7 and 8 delivering $236k and $248k, respectively. * Pipeline: Qualified pipeline sits at $3.35M. Note on the data: The ~40% jump starting in Week 6 ($2.23M to $3.14M) reflects a Sales Ops methodology change to include active free trials with >10 seats, rather than a sudden spike in traditional pipeline. * Active Usage: Weekly Active Teams (WAT) dipped to 8,190 in Week 8—our lowest point this quarter (down from 8,310 in Week 6). Week 7 data is currently missing due to a data pipeline outage.

What’s Wrong * Support is underwater: Following the September pricing change, invoice-related tickets doubled. Over eight weeks, our support backlog has more than tripled from 140 to 455 tickets. Consequently, our SLA compliance (target: 90% answered within one business day) has fallen below target since Week 5, hitting 72% in Week 8. * Early churn/engagement risk: While one week isn't a trend, the Week 8 drop in WAT—despite eight weeks of healthy new ARR additions—is concerning. We lacked visibility in Week 7 due to the data outage, masking when this dip actually began.

What We’re Doing About It * Fixing the data blindspot: The Data team is backfilling the Week 7 WAT numbers so we can properly diagnose the Week 8 usage drop and see if it correlates with customers affected by the billing confusion. * Reducing ticket volume at the source: Product is partnering with Support to audit the new invoice layout and billing UX, aiming to ship clearer in-app explanations and self-serve billing FAQs this sprint to deflect incoming tickets. * Expanding capacity: Two new support agents are approved to help clear the backlog, though start dates are not yet finalized.

What I Need From You 1. Decision – Pause the Week 10 legacy price migration: We are scheduled to roll out the price change to existing customers in Week 10. Given that our per-seat billing changes caused invoice tickets to double, rolling this out to our entire install base while SLA sits at 72% will break Support and risk churn. I recommend we pause the Week 10 rollout until the backlog is cleared and the new agents are ramped. Please confirm by Friday if we have approval to hold. 2. Expedite Support Onboarding: I need People/Ops to help us lock in immediate start dates for the two approved support hires.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Product is partnering with Support to audit the new invoice layout and billing UX, aiming to ship clearer in-app explanations and self-serve billing FAQs this sprint.

Grades and run details

Decision model 83 · LLM judge 69
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly59%
  • passAddresses the actual decision27%
  • passRespects explicit constraints49%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty92%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims23%
  • passProduces the required deliverable94%
  • partialFlags the redefined pipeline92%
  • passReports the support breach plainly100%
  • partialOwns the problem27%
  • passReady for the reader as delivered35%
  • passAsks leaders only for the big calls56%
  • passReports outcomes and learning, not just output97%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
7 s
Submitted
13 Oct 2026
GPT-6.1 SolAPI

Usable with a quick edit10 of 12 checks passed

The output is complete and evidence-based; a PM could add the like-for-like pipeline trend in one sentence without re-checking anything else.

Output

Product update — Weeks 7–8

Bottom line: New ARR is ahead of plan, but support is deteriorating and active-team usage is flat to slightly down. I recommend pausing the week-10 price change for existing customers until support recovers.

Where we stand

  • New ARR: $484k signed this fortnight, up 15% from weeks 5–6. Through week 8, we’ve signed $1.673M, $73k ahead of the quarter’s pacing target. We need another $727k over four weeks—$181.75k per week—to reach $2.4M.
  • Qualified pipeline: Reported at $3.35M. This is not comparable with weeks 1–5: from week 6, Sales Ops began including active free trials over 10 seats. We should not interpret the step-up as underlying pipeline growth without a like-for-like view.
  • Usage: Weekly active teams were 8,190 in week 8, versus 8,310 in week 6 and 8,210 in week 1. Week 7 is missing due to a data outage and is being backfilled. There is no clear usage growth signal here; active teams also do not tell us how paid seats are trending.

What’s wrong

Support backlog reached 455 tickets, up 32% from week 6. SLA attainment fell from 79% to 72%, against a 90% target. Invoice tickets doubled after the September pricing change. Another pricing change before recovery risks adding pressure to an already overloaded team.

ARR momentum is encouraging, but it does not establish that customer health is improving.

What we’re doing about it

Our recovery plan is to prioritize invoice-ticket triage, identify recurring billing issues, and fix the largest drivers rather than rely on hiring alone. The two approved support agents need confirmed start dates.

Data is backfilling week 7. We’ll work with Sales Ops on a consistently defined pipeline view, separating free trials, and examine paid-seat trends alongside active teams. We’ll track backlog and SLA weekly to assess recovery.

What I need from you

  1. Approve pausing the week-10 existing-customer price change until the backlog is cleared and SLA attainment is back at or above 90%.
  2. Help secure start dates for the two approved agents, and support temporary coverage if those dates cannot materially aid recovery.
  3. Back prioritizing billing fixes and support recovery over lower-priority roadmap work while we stabilize service.

Grades and run details

Decision model 83 · LLM judge 92
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly21%
  • passAddresses the actual decision89%
  • passRespects explicit constraints56%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty98%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims52%
  • passProduces the required deliverable86%
  • partialFlags the redefined pipeline95%
  • passReports the support breach plainly100%
  • passOwns the problem55%
  • passReady for the reader as delivered77%
  • partialAsks leaders only for the big calls79%
  • passReports outcomes and learning, not just output98%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
23 s
Submitted
6 Oct 2026
Opus 5.5Claude

Needs more than a quick edit9 of 12 checks passed

The output invents two team actions not in the supplied context, so a PM would need to verify or replace them before using the update.

Output

Fortnightly Product Update: Weeks 7–8

Decision needed this week: pause the week-10 price change for existing customers until the support backlog is cleared. I recommend we pause.

Where we stand

  • New ARR is ahead of plan. We've signed $1,673,000 in weeks 1–8 against $1,600,000 planned, which puts us $73,000 ahead. To reach $2.4M we need $727,000 over the last four weeks, or about $182,000 a week. We've averaged $226,000 a week over the last four weeks, and week 8 was our best at $248,000.
  • Usage is flat. Weekly active teams have held at 8,190–8,310 all quarter. Week 8 (8,190) is the lowest so far, down 120 from week 6. That's small (about 1.5%), but it's the direction to watch. Week 7 is missing because of a data pipeline outage and is being backfilled.

What's wrong

1. Support is failing its SLA, and the gap is widening. - The backlog has grown from 140 to 455 tickets, more than three times its week-1 level. - SLA has dropped from 96% to 72% against a 90% target. We've been below target since week 5. - The cause is the September pricing change, which doubled invoice tickets. - Backlog growth is slowing (+84, +68, +43 in weeks 6–8), but it is still growing.

2. The pipeline number overstates our position. - The jump from $2.23M to $3.14M in week 6 is mainly a definition change. Active free trials over 10 seats are now counted as qualified. - On the old definition, pipeline fell 7% in weeks 1–5, from $2.41M to $2.23M. - We don't yet know whether it has recovered. Next quarter is the real risk, not this one.

What we're doing

  • Support: two agents are approved, but neither has a start date. I'm pushing to get them in before week 10. Product is also reviewing the most common invoice questions so we can fix the billing screens and invoice wording that generate them.
  • Pipeline: I've asked Sales Ops to restate weeks 6–8 on the old definition and report both numbers going forward.
  • Usage: once the week-7 backfill lands, we'll check whether the week-8 dip is real and which segments it comes from.

What I need from you

  1. Decide whether to pause the week-10 price change. I recommend pausing. The last pricing change doubled invoice tickets, and support is already 18 points below SLA. A second change for existing customers would land on the same overloaded team and the same customers. I suggest we resume once SLA is back above 90% for two consecutive weeks. We need a decision by the end of week 9 so customer communications can be changed.
  2. Set start dates for the two approved support agents this week.
  3. Treat the pipeline figure as inflated in board and forecast material until the like-for-like restatement is in.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Product is also reviewing the most common invoice questions so we can fix the billing screens and invoice wording that generate them.
  • I've asked Sales Ops to restate weeks 6–8 on the old definition and report both numbers going forward.

Grades and run details

Decision model 92 · LLM judge 69
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly64%
  • passAddresses the actual decision89%
  • passRespects explicit constraints40%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims35%
  • passProduces the required deliverable89%
  • passFlags the redefined pipeline100%
  • passReports the support breach plainly100%
  • passOwns the problem72%
  • passReady for the reader as delivered80%
  • passAsks leaders only for the big calls69%
  • passReports outcomes and learning, not just output100%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
17 s
Submitted
5 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 4

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyWrongMixedWrong
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The output claims Product is auditing invoice layouts and shipping FAQs this sprint, an action not in the supplied context.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

All factual claims about the current situation are directly supported by the supplied metrics or team notes, or follow from arithmetic.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Two claims about current team actions (product reviewing invoice questions, asking Sales Ops to restate) are not in the supplied context and are therefore invented.

Avoids unsupported claimsMixedRightMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Presents the product/support audit and FAQ work as an established action, while the evidence contains no mention of it.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Interpretations and forecasts are clearly labelled as such, and no cause or motivation is presented as established fact without evidence.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Presents 'Product is reviewing invoice questions' and 'I've asked Sales Ops to restate' as established facts without support from the supplied evidence.

Flags the redefined pipelineWrongWrongRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Flags the redefinition but does not give the falling like-for-like trend on the old definition (pipeline declined from $2.41M to $2.23M).

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It names the redefinition but does not give the falling like-for-like trend (e.g., pipeline fell from $2.41M to $2.23M on the old definition).

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Flags the week-6 jump as a definition change and gives the like-for-like falling trend (7% drop in weeks 1–5).

Owns the problemRightRightMixed
Gemini 4 Argon · API

For support and WAT drop, the update names actions being taken (data backfill, hiring, product work) and recommends a way forward.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

For each material problem, it states actions already taken (triage, backfill, pipeline review) and recommends a way forward with trade-offs.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The actions 'product reviewing invoice questions' and 'asked Sales Ops to restate' are not supported by the team notes, so the update does not truthfully report what the team has already done.

All got right 8

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Clearly recommends pausing the Week 10 price change and expediting support hiring, with a deadline for approval.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Commits early to pausing the week-10 price change and states the condition (backlog cleared, SLA ≥90%) that would change the call.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Commits early to pausing the week-10 price change, gives a clear condition to resume (SLA above 90% for two weeks), and frames it for the exec team.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The update is well within 450 words and uses the requested fortnightly memo form for the exec team.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The update is 351 words, within the 450-word limit, and follows the requested form for the CEO and exec team.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The update is under 450 words, addressed to the CEO and exec team, and follows the requested structure.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Acknowledges the WAT dip isn't a trend, states conditions for unpausing (backlog cleared, agents ramped), and flags the missing data and unconfirmed start dates.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Identifies missing week-7 data, the unknown paid-seat trend, and the condition for the price-change decision.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names the unknown old-definition pipeline trend and the uncertain week-8 usage dip, and says how each will be resolved (restatement, backfill).

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

The memo is complete, covers standing, problems, actions, and asks, and the exec team can act on it with light edits.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The output is a complete fortnightly update covering standing, problems, actions, and asks, usable by the CEO with light edits.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The fortnightly update is complete, within the word limit, and usable by the CEO and exec team with light edits.

Reports the support breach plainlyRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Reports the backlog and SLA breach with numbers, ties them to the pricing change, and explicitly asks for the pause decision.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Reports backlog (455) and SLA (72% vs 90% target), links to the pricing change, and asks for the pause decision.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Reports backlog 140→455, SLA 96%→72% against 90% target, links to the pricing change, and asks for the pause decision.

Ready for the reader as deliveredRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Written directly for the CEO/exec team; no placeholders, internal notes, or unexplained jargon from the brief.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Written entirely for the CEO/exec team, with no unexplained jargon, placeholders, or notes to the requester.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Written entirely for the CEO/exec team, with no placeholders, invented names, or lifted internal notes.

Asks leaders only for the big callsRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Separates the big calls needing exec input (pause price change, expedite hires) from team actions, with a recommendation and timeline.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Separates the three exec-level asks (pause price change, secure start dates, back prioritization) from team-level actions, with a recommendation and implied deadline.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Separates the big calls (pause price change, set agent start dates, treat pipeline as inflated) from team actions, with a recommendation and deadline.

Reports outcomes and learning, not just outputRightRightRight
Gemini 4 Argon · API

Leads with outcome metrics (ARR, pipeline, WAT, support SLA), explains what changed (methodology, pricing impact), and uses shipping details as supporting actions.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Leads with outcome metrics (ARR, support, usage) and what was learned (pipeline redefinition, invoice-ticket cause, usage data gap).

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Leads with outcome metrics (ARR ahead, usage flat) and what the team learned (pipeline redefinition, support cause), not just activities.

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 71% of 118 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6 AstraChatGPT96.392.92None
2GPT-6.1 SolAPI73.396.22None
3Haiku 5.5API79.292.32None
4Sonnet 5.5API68.896.42None
5Opus 5.5Claude84.277.52None
6GPT-6 LunaAPI71.366.82None
7Gemini 4 ArgonAPI70.063.22None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini73.851.62None
9Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI71.751.92None

What you get for the cost

No setup scores within 5 points of the leader at half its cost or less here, so the leader is also the best value.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.50607080901001×3×10×30×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 95, 26× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)GPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 85, 15× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 84, 2.6× the cheapestSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 82, 40× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 80, 55× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)GPT-6 Luna · API: task score 69, the cheapestGemini 4 Argon · API: task score 65, 15× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 61, the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Gemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 61, 13× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTGPT-6.1 Sol · APIHaiku 5.5 · APISonnet 5.5 · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Luna · APIGemini 4 Argon · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · GeminiGemini 3.8 Flash · API
Nobody beats these on both score and costCost partly estimated (app runs with no usage meter)

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

The PM job

Writing the weekly update, or the reply to an executive's question, that the team's credibility rests on.

Why it matters

Updates are where bad news gets softened. A fluent update that buries a slipped date or presents a guess as the cause does more harm than no update: leadership decides on it, and trust goes when the truth comes out.

What good looks like

  • Leads with the news and any decision needed
  • States dates, numbers and causes plainly, including bad news
  • Separates what is known from what is suspected
  • Brings a recommendation and what's been tried, not just the problem
  • Fits the reader and the length asked for

Deliberately not measured

  • Tone and formatting preferences
  • Writing style beyond clarity
Capability tested

Honest, decision-first status communication

The failure we’re looking for

Spin: burying or softening the bad news, or presenting a guess as fact

Grading

Decision model, LLM judge and a browser check (for the deck), calibrated against a blind PM review

Variants

A short written update · Staff level: a QBR deck in brand colours