---

name: ab-testing-analysis description: > Analyze A/B test results with statistical significance testing, effect size estimation, confidence intervals, segment analysis, and structured decision frameworks for reliable experiment conclusions. TRIGGER when: user says /ab-testing-analysis, "A/B test results", "experiment analysis", "statistical significance", "split test", "analyze experiment", "test results", or "did the test win". argument-hint: "[test_name or experiment_id]" user-invocable: true

A/B Testing Analysis

You are an expert experimentation analyst and statistician. When the user asks you to analyze A/B test results, follow this structured process to deliver rigorous, trustworthy conclusions with clear decision recommendations.

Step 1: Experiment Context Review

Before analyzing results, understand the experiment design:

Context Element	Details to Capture
Test name/ID	Unique identifier
Hypothesis	"If [change], then [metric] will [direction] because [reason]"
Primary metric	The single metric that determines success/failure
Secondary metrics	Additional metrics to monitor for trade-offs
Guardrail metrics	Metrics that must not degrade (e.g., error rate, load time)
Variants	Control (A) and treatment(s) (B, C, ...) with descriptions
Traffic split	Percentage allocated to each variant
Target audience	All users, or specific segment?
Randomization unit	User, session, device, account?
Start/end date	Duration of the experiment
Minimum sample size	Pre-calculated required sample per variant
MDE	Minimum Detectable Effect that was planned

Step 2: Data Validation

Validate the experiment data before drawing conclusions:

Pre-Analysis Checks

Check	Method	Pass Criteria
Sample Ratio Mismatch (SRM)	Chi-squared test on actual vs expected split	p > 0.01 (no significant imbalance)
Novelty/primacy effects	Compare first-week vs subsequent-week metrics	No significant trend shift
Instrumentation	Verify events fire correctly in both variants	Event counts within expected range
Pre-exposure bias	Compare pre-experiment metrics between groups	No significant difference (p > 0.05)
Bot/outlier contamination	Check for extreme values, known bot patterns	Less than 1% flagged
Assignment persistence	Users remain in assigned variant throughout	No cross-contamination detected

SRM Check Formula

Expected: Control = N * split_control, Treatment = N * split_treatment
Chi-squared = Σ (Observed - Expected)² / Expected
If p-value < 0.01: STOP — investigate assignment bug before proceeding

Step 3: Statistical Analysis

Perform rigorous statistical testing:

Primary Metric Analysis

Metric	Control (A)	Treatment (B)	Absolute Diff	Relative Diff	95% CI	p-value	Significant?
[Primary]	[value]	[value]	[diff]	[%]	[lower, upper]	[p]	YES/NO
[Secondary 1]	[value]	[value]	[diff]	[%]	[lower, upper]	[p]	YES/NO
[Secondary 2]	[value]	[value]	[diff]	[%]	[lower, upper]	[p]	YES/NO
[Guardrail 1]	[value]	[value]	[diff]	[%]	[lower, upper]	[p]	PASS/FAIL

Statistical Methods by Metric Type

Metric Type	Test	Assumptions	Example Metric
Conversion rate (binary)	Z-test for proportions, Chi-squared	Large sample, independent observations	Signup rate, purchase rate
Continuous (revenue, time)	Welch's t-test or Mann-Whitney U	t-test: approximately normal or large n; Mann-Whitney: non-parametric	Revenue per user, session duration
Count data	Poisson or negative binomial regression	Count distribution, possible overdispersion	Pages per session, clicks
Rate metric	Delta method or bootstrap	Ratio metric (e.g., revenue/user)	ARPU, CTR
Time-to-event	Log-rank test, Cox regression	Survival analysis framework	Time to first purchase

Key Statistical Concepts

Concept	Definition	Threshold
p-value	Probability of observing this result if no true effect	< 0.05 (standard)
Confidence interval	Range likely containing the true effect	95% CI does not cross zero
Statistical power	Probability of detecting a true effect	>= 80% (standard)
Effect size	Magnitude of the difference	Context-dependent
MDE	Smallest meaningful effect the test can detect	Set pre-experiment
Multiple testing correction	Adjustment for testing many metrics	Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg

Step 4: Effect Size and Practical Significance

Go beyond statistical significance to assess business impact:

Effect Size Estimation

Measure	Formula	Interpretation
Absolute difference	Treatment mean - Control mean	Raw impact in original units
Relative lift	(Treatment - Control) / Control * 100%	Percentage improvement
Cohen's d	(Treatment mean - Control mean) / pooled SD	Small: 0.2, Medium: 0.5, Large: 0.8
Number Needed to Treat (NNT)	1 / Absolute difference in rates	Users needed to see one additional conversion

Practical Significance Assessment

Scenario	Statistical Sig.	Practical Sig.	Decision
Large effect, significant	YES	YES	Ship the treatment
Small effect, significant	YES	NO	Likely not worth complexity; consider costs
Large effect, not significant	NO	Maybe	Extend test, increase sample size
No effect, not significant	NO	NO	Revert to control, iterate on hypothesis

Business Impact Projection

Current baseline: [metric value] across [user count] users
Observed lift: [relative %] ([absolute diff] per user)
Projected annual impact: [lift * annual volume]
Revenue impact: [projected impact * revenue per unit]
Confidence range: [lower CI impact] to [upper CI impact]

Step 5: Segment Analysis

Check if the treatment effect varies across segments:

Segment Breakdown Table

Segment	Control Conv.	Treatment Conv.	Lift	95% CI	n (Control)	n (Treatment)	Significant?
Mobile	[%]	[%]	[%]	[CI]	[n]	[n]	YES/NO
Desktop	[%]	[%]	[%]	[CI]	[n]	[n]	YES/NO
New users	[%]	[%]	[%]	[CI]	[n]	[n]	YES/NO
Returning users	[%]	[%]	[%]	[CI]	[n]	[n]	YES/NO
Region A	[%]	[%]	[%]	[CI]	[n]	[n]	YES/NO
Region B	[%]	[%]	[%]	[CI]	[n]	[n]	YES/NO

Segment Analysis Cautions

• Apply multiple testing correction when testing many segments
• Segment analyses are exploratory, not confirmatory — use them to generate hypotheses
• Require minimum sample size per segment (typically 1000+ per variant per segment)
• Report interaction effects, not just subgroup results
• Pre-register segments of interest before analyzing to avoid cherry-picking

Step 6: Decision Framework

Synthesize all evidence into a clear recommendation:

Decision Matrix

Evidence	Ship Treatment	Iterate	Revert to Control
Primary metric	Significant positive	Positive but not significant	Neutral or negative
Secondary metrics	Neutral or positive	Mixed	Negative on key metrics
Guardrail metrics	All pass	All pass	Any fail
Practical significance	Meaningful business impact	Marginal impact	No impact
Segment effects	Consistent or favorable	Varies — consider targeting	Negative in key segments
Implementation cost	Acceptable	High — weigh against benefit	Any cost is unjustified

Recommendation Template

DECISION: [Ship / Iterate / Revert]
CONFIDENCE: [High / Medium / Low]

EVIDENCE SUMMARY:
- Primary metric: [direction] [magnitude], p = [value]
- Secondary metrics: [summary]
- Guardrail metrics: [pass/fail status]
- Business impact: [projected annual value]

RISKS:
- [Risk 1 and mitigation]
- [Risk 2 and mitigation]

NEXT STEPS:
1. [Action item with owner]
2. [Action item with owner]
3. [Action item with owner]

Output Format

Present the A/B test analysis as:

1. Executive Summary (1-2 sentences: did the test win, by how much, what to do)
2. Experiment Overview (hypothesis, variants, duration, sample sizes)
3. Data Validation (SRM check, pre-exposure balance, instrumentation)
4. Statistical Results (primary/secondary/guardrail metrics with p-values and CIs)
5. Effect Size and Business Impact (practical significance, revenue projection)
6. Segment Analysis (key segments with differential effects)
7. Decision and Recommendation (ship/iterate/revert with rationale)
8. Learnings and Next Experiments (what was learned, what to test next)

Quality Checklist

Before delivering the analysis, verify:

• Sample Ratio Mismatch check has been performed
• Pre-exposure bias has been assessed
• Statistical test is appropriate for the metric type
• Confidence intervals are reported alongside p-values
• Multiple testing correction is applied when analyzing many metrics
• Effect size is interpreted in practical (not just statistical) terms
• Guardrail metrics have been checked
• Segment analysis includes sample size and significance per segment
• Decision recommendation is clear and actionable

Edge Cases

• Underpowered test (insufficient sample): Do not declare "no effect" — state the test was inconclusive; calculate the power achieved and the MDE it could detect
• Multiple treatment variants (A/B/C/D): Apply Bonferroni or Dunnett's correction; compare each treatment to control, not to each other
• Peeking (checking results early): Use sequential testing methods (e.g., always-valid p-values, group sequential boundaries) or wait for full sample
• Network effects: Standard A/B tests assume independence — use cluster randomization or switchback designs for social/marketplace features
• Long-term effects: Short tests may miss delayed impacts; run holdout groups for 30-90 days post-experiment to measure persistence
• Ratio metrics (e.g., revenue per user): Use delta method or bootstrap for variance estimation — standard t-tests can be misleading for ratios