The playbook
Growth Experiment Planning: Checklist
Use this growth experiment planning checklist before a new release, a handoff, or a scheduled review. Its purpose is to verify the decisions that affect experiments producing usable decisions. Check an actual client or workflow record; a box marked complete without evidence does not show that the customer journey works.
Put the task in context
State the mechanism you expect to change, such as clearer qualification improving lead suitability. Choose a comparison and an outcome tied to that mechanism. A result that contradicts the hypothesis should change the plan rather than be explained away automatically.
Before you use the checklist
Name the exact item being checked and its purpose. Gather hypothesis, mechanism, measure, decision. If one of those details is unknown, mark it as unknown and assign a way to resolve it. An invented value makes the checklist look complete while weakening every later decision.
Working checklist
| Check | Evidence to keep | Responsible role |
|---|---|---|
| State the problem hypothesis and expected mechanism | A dated observation showing how hypothesis was verified | account lead |
| Choose a measurable outcome and a reasonable comparison | A dated observation showing how mechanism was verified | delivery owner |
| Record the decision rule and operational constraints | A dated observation showing how measure was verified | business owner |
Check the failure path
- Look specifically for this failure: running many tests without defining what would change your mind.
- Specify what result leads to expansion revision or stopping. Record the actual correction, not just the intention to make it.
- Repeat the affected task after the correction and check decision.
- Make sure the next owner can find the decision and supporting evidence.
Use three outcomes for each check
Mark an item as complete only when the expected behavior or information has been observed. Mark it as incomplete when a required condition is absent. Use not applicable when the condition genuinely does not belong to the chosen scope, and write a short reason. These states keep a review useful without forcing every process into an identical mold.
For example, if the check is “State the problem hypothesis and expected mechanism,” a meeting about the subject is not the evidence itself. Retain the relevant hypothesis and mechanism, the decision made from them, and the result of checking that decision. The record should allow someone who missed the meeting to understand what changed.
Decide what must be resolved first
An incomplete item that prevents turn a growth idea into a test that can inform a practical decision deserves attention before a cosmetic improvement. Assign an owner and a next action to that issue. Keep optional refinements visible, but do not let them obscure a failure in the core process.
Close the review
Recheck corrected items and note anything still uncertain. The checklist is finished when the next owner understands what was verified and what remains open. Follow experiments producing usable decisions using a consistent definition so later reviews can connect execution quality with useful results.
Prefer a small set of shared definitions across marketing, sales, and delivery. If a qualified lead or accepted deliverable means something different to each team, the disagreement will reappear in reports and client conversations.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixHUB run this for every client.
Start now