The playbook
Growth Experiment Planning: Review Process
A useful growth experiment planning review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: hypothesis, mechanism, measure, decision. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
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.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| State the problem hypothesis and expected mechanism | Is the supporting hypothesis current and traceable? |
| Choose a measurable outcome and a reasonable comparison | Does mechanism support the decision being made? |
| Record the decision rule and operational constraints | Can the next owner verify decision? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to running many tests without defining what would change your mind. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, specify what result leads to expansion revision or stopping. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected client or workflow record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to experiments producing usable decisions using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Separate promised work from forecasts. Your team can commit to clear deliverables and operating standards; customer demand and market outcomes involve additional uncertainty. State the assumptions behind the forecast and review them against experience.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixHUB run this for every client.
Start now