{ "status": "illustrative_not_run", "provenance": "Fictional scenarios and synthetic data prepared with AI assistance. Independent human scoring is pending.", "scale": { "0": "absent or materially wrong", "1": "major corrections", "2": "substantive gaps", "3": "minor omissions", "4": "fully supported and decision-ready" }, "formula": "sum(score / 4 * weight)", "acceptance": "total >= 80; all dimensions >= 2; no critical failure", "samples": [ { "slug": "product-launch", "title": "Product launch readiness", "brief": "A launch date is a commitment. Is the product ready?", "task": "Act as the product lead for a fictional B2B reporting service. Recommend broad launch, a limited pilot, or delay. Produce a decision memo of up to 800 words, a launch-gate checklist with owners and dates, and a risk register. Use only the supplied packet; label assumptions. Planning horizon: day 0 through day 30.", "inputs": [ [ "P1 \u00b7 Demand", "12 pilot customers; 8 completed onboarding, 3 stalled at data import, 1 has not started. Six of the eight onboarded customers used the core report weekly over the last four weeks. No willingness-to-pay study is available." ], [ "P2 \u00b7 Quality", "Two open release blockers: a cross-account export authorization defect (5 engineering days) and intermittent billing reconciliation failure (3 days). Independent QA requires 2 additional days after both fixes. No security sign-off exists." ], [ "P3 \u00b7 Capacity", "Before the day-10 announced launch: 10 engineering person-days and 2 QA person-days available. CSV import improvements require 4 engineering days; a requested dashboard enhancement requires 3. Support can onboard 4 customers per week." ], [ "P4 \u00b7 Commitments", "Sales has promised 10 new customer starts at launch. A controlled pilot may start only after both blockers pass QA. The launch owner can renegotiate timing; no contractual penalties are specified." ] ], "response": "Delay the day-10 broad launch. Spend 8 engineering days on the two blockers and reserve 2 engineering days for remediation; allocate the 2 QA days to independent retests. Capacity arithmetic alone does not prove the sequence fits the calendar, so confirm assigned staff and QA scheduling on day 0. Do not expose any new pilot account until authorization and billing checks pass. Offer at most 4 starts in the first cleared week, then 4 and 2 in subsequent weeks. Ask sales to reset all 10 commitments before day 2. Defer the dashboard and schedule import work in a later capacity window. At day 10, the product lead and QA owner jointly review evidence; unresolved blockers mean continued delay. At day 30, review activation, weekly core-report use, import failures and support burden before expanding. Six of 12 invited customers show weekly use (50%); six of 8 onboarded customers do so (75%). Neither is proof of paid demand.", "criteria": [ [ "Evidence and arithmetic", 25, "Reports both denominators correctly, separates usage from willingness to pay, and cites P1\u2013P4." ], [ "Release safety and gates", 30, "Blocks exposure until both defects pass independent QA; identifies evidence and decision owners." ], [ "Capacity and sequencing", 20, "Fits 8 engineering + 2 reserve and 2 QA days; acknowledges calendar dependencies; respects 4 onboardings/week." ], [ "Commercial judgment", 15, "Resets commitments and explains the cost of delay versus unsafe release without inventing penalties." ], [ "Decision usability", 10, "Includes owners, day-0/day-2/day-10/day-30 checkpoints, a checklist and risk register." ] ], "gates": "Any recommendation to expose new accounts before the authorization blocker passes QA, or fabricated test evidence, makes the submission not acceptable regardless of total.", "calibration": "A polished launch memo that recommends 10 day-10 starts despite the support ceiling fails the capacity criterion. A memo that approves launch with the authorization defect open also triggers the critical-failure rule.", "sensitivity": "If both fixes take 50% longer, engineering demand becomes 12 days before remediation, exceeding the 10-day capacity. Replan the date; do not silently spend the reserve twice." }, { "slug": "go-to-market", "title": "Marketing and go-to-market", "brief": "Choose a market before choosing every channel.", "task": "Act as the commercial lead for a fictional workflow SaaS business. Deliver a 90-day go-to-market memo of up to 900 words, a channel budget, a funnel calculation and a measurement plan. Choose one initial segment. The campaign objective is learning and qualified pipeline, not a guaranteed revenue target.", "inputs": [ [ "M1 \u00b7 Product and segments", "Product: shared approvals and version history for small marketing teams. It has no automated compliance certification. Interview notes: 8 of 12 agencies describe approval delays as weekly; 3 of 12 in-house teams do. Convenience sample, not a representative market survey." ], [ "M2 \u00b7 Economics", "Annual subscription price: $6,000 per customer. Gross margin assumption: 80%. No retention data. Sales can support at most 40 qualified demos per month. Do not calculate lifetime value without a stated retention assumption." ], [ "M3 \u00b7 Channel pilot", "Prior paid-search test: $4,000 spend, 80 leads, 20 qualified demos, 2 customers. Prior partner webinar: $2,000 spend, 40 leads, 12 qualified demos, 2 customers. Small, nonrandom cohorts; no proof the channels scale linearly." ], [ "M4 \u00b7 Budget and execution", "90-day cash ceiling: $24,000. Creative/landing-page work costs $4,000, measurement setup $2,000. A webinar partner has offered up to 2 new events at $2,000 each. Remaining spend can be reserved or allocated to search in $2,000 increments. Customer outcomes are not guaranteed." ] ], "response": "Start with small agencies: the interview evidence suggests a more frequent approval problem, but validate it through paid conversion. Position the product as a way to keep approval decisions and current versions visible; avoid compliance guarantees. Allocate $4,000 to creative, $2,000 to measurement, $4,000 to two partner events, $8,000 to staged paid search and $6,000 to reserve: $24,000 total. At historical rates, search implies 160 leads, 40 demos and 4 customers; two webinars imply 80 leads, 24 demos and 4 customers. The combined 8-customer scenario is $48,000 in annual contract value, not cash collected or 90-day revenue. Historical channel-only acquisition costs were $2,000 search and $1,000 webinar; the planned $18,000 spent across channels and setup implies $2,250 blended acquisition cost only if 8 customers close. Schedule demos across the quarter below 40 per month. Instrument source, qualified-demo definition, attended demos and closed accounts. Review search after each $2,000 tranche; pause if it generates no qualified demos, and investigate lead quality before spending again. Reallocate reserve only after reviewing conversion and capacity, with approval from the commercial lead.", "criteria": [ [ "Segment and positioning", 20, "Uses the interview signal with sampling limits and makes a specific, supportable product promise." ], [ "Budget and funnel arithmetic", 30, "Reconciles $24,000, 64 demos and the conditional 8-customer scenario; distinguishes channel CAC from blended cost and annual value from cash." ], [ "Execution feasibility", 20, "Uses no more than 2 offered webinars, respects demo capacity, and sequences accountable work." ], [ "Measurement and uncertainty", 20, "Defines funnel events, staged spend, pause conditions and small-sample limits; avoids unsupported LTV." ], [ "Communication", 10, "Provides a usable memo, budget and measurement plan with explicit assumptions." ] ], "gates": "Fabricated customer evidence, compliance certification claims, or an unacknowledged budget overrun makes the submission not acceptable.", "calibration": "A proposal that calls $48,000 \u201c90-day cash revenue\u201d loses credit for economics. A different segment can earn full credit if it confronts the weaker interview signal with a coherent, testable rationale.", "sensitivity": "At half the assumed close rate, 64 demos yield 4 customers and $24,000 annual contract value; $18,000 divided by 4 is $4,500 blended acquisition cost. First-year gross profit is $19,200 before other operating costs. This is a scenario, not a forecast." }, { "slug": "resource-allocation", "title": "Business resource allocation", "brief": "A good priority list must fit the resources available.", "task": "Act as the operating lead of a fictional early-stage software business. Allocate next quarter\u2019s discretionary cash and team capacity. Produce a decision memo of up to 800 words, an allocation table, a deferred-work list and a downside plan. Preserve the mandatory reserve and show all arithmetic.", "inputs": [ [ "R1 \u00b7 Limits", "Discretionary cash: $90,000. Mandatory unspent reserve: at least $20,000. Available incremental team capacity: 30 person-weeks. Base salaries and existing operations are already funded and excluded; cash figures below are incremental." ], [ "R2 \u00b7 Mandatory work", "Reliability work A: $25,000 and 10 person-weeks, mandatory. No revenue is attributed to it. Work is indivisible." ], [ "R3 \u00b7 Optional work", "Onboarding B: $20,000 and 8 person-weeks, estimated annual contribution $35,000. Partner pilot C: $25,000 and 10 person-weeks, estimated annual contribution $45,000. Reporting D: $15,000 and 6 person-weeks, estimated annual contribution $18,000. All are indivisible, may overlap, and estimates are uncertain contribution after variable costs, not cash collected this quarter." ], [ "R4 \u00b7 Dependencies and downside", "C requires B to be funded in the same quarter. B and C can overlap after B\u2019s initial workflow design. No deadline-based commitment is specified. Downside scenario: available cash falls to $75,000; the $20,000 minimum reserve and 30-person-week capacity remain." ] ], "response": "Fund A, B and C: $70,000 and 28 person-weeks, leaving $20,000 cash reserve and 2 person-weeks of capacity. Defer D. The optional annual contribution estimate is $80,000 ($35,000 + $45,000), not current-quarter cash or guaranteed return. A+B+D would cost $60,000 and use 24 person-weeks, preserving $30,000 and estimating $53,000 annual contribution. Choosing A+B+C favors the larger conditional contribution and partner learning, while accepting a thinner cash cushion. C cannot be chosen without B. The operating lead owns cash and capacity; the product lead owns A and B; the commercial lead owns C. Confirm B\u2019s workflow design before C begins dependent work. Review spend and staffing weekly and reassess contribution assumptions monthly. If the cash envelope falls to $75,000 before optional commitments, choose A+B: $45,000, 18 person-weeks, $30,000 remaining. A+B+D would leave only $15,000 and violate the reserve; A+C is invalid without B. If costs are already committed when the downside arrives, flag the shortfall and seek a revised cash plan rather than treating spent money as recoverable.", "criteria": [ [ "Constraint compliance", 30, "Preserves reserve and person-week limits, funds A, and enforces the C-requires-B dependency." ], [ "Arithmetic and economics", 25, "Reconciles cash and capacity for base and downside; does not confuse annual contribution with cash receipts." ], [ "Tradeoffs", 20, "Compares feasible alternatives and explains risk appetite; does not claim a uniquely optimal answer without an objective." ], [ "Downside and controls", 15, "Provides feasible cuts, monitoring owners and a distinction between uncommitted and committed spend." ], [ "Decision usability", 10, "Includes the allocation, deferred work, timing dependencies and an actionable memo." ] ], "gates": "Skipping mandatory A, breaking C\u2019s dependency, or violating the reserve/capacity constraint without explicitly rejecting that plan makes the submission not acceptable.", "calibration": "A+B+D is a valid conservative base choice and can earn full credit with a clear rationale. A+C is not a valid \u201chigher-return\u201d shortcut because C depends on B.", "sensitivity": "If B and C contribution estimates both fall by 50%, their combined annual contribution estimate is $40,000. Their cash cost remains $45,000. A one-year contribution/cost comparison now looks weaker; it does not establish lifetime ROI or compel a single decision." } ] }