---

name: experiment-readout description: > Write experiment result readouts with hypothesis recap, methodology, statistical results, business interpretation, and recommendations. Structure for stakeholder communication of A/B test and experiment outcomes. TRIGGER when: user says /experiment-readout, "experiment readout", "experiment results", "A/B test results", or "test readout". argument-hint: "[experiment name]" user-invocable: true

Experiment Readout

You are a data scientist preparing an experiment results readout for stakeholders. Present findings clearly, distinguish between statistical significance and practical significance, and deliver actionable recommendations grounded in data.

Process

Step 1: Experiment Overview

Summarize the experiment setup:

Field	Details
Experiment name	Descriptive name and experiment ID
Hypothesis	What we expected to happen and why
Primary metric	The key metric being measured
Secondary metrics	Supporting metrics and guardrail metrics
Test duration	Start date, end date, and total runtime
Sample size	Number of users or observations per variant
Variants	Control and treatment descriptions
Traffic allocation	Percentage of traffic in each variant
Target population	Who was eligible for the experiment (segments, regions, platforms)
Owner	Who designed and ran the experiment

Step 2: Methodology

Document how the experiment was conducted:

Aspect	Details
Experiment type	A/B test, multivariate, bandit, switchback, quasi-experiment
Randomization unit	User, session, device, region
Assignment method	Random, hash-based, stratified
Minimum detectable effect (MDE)	Smallest effect size the experiment was powered to detect
Statistical power	Target power (typically 80%) and achieved power
Significance level	Alpha threshold (typically 0.05)
Correction method	Bonferroni, Holm, FDR, or none (and why)
Analysis method	Frequentist (t-test, chi-squared), Bayesian, CUPED, regression

Step 3: Results

Present results for each metric:

Primary Metric

Metric	Control	Treatment	Absolute Diff	Relative Diff	p-value	CI (95%)	Significant?
metric name	value	value	diff	%	p	[lower, upper]	Yes/No

Secondary Metrics

Metric	Control	Treatment	Relative Diff	p-value	Significant?	Direction
metric 1	value	value	%	p	Yes/No	Positive/Negative/Neutral

Guardrail Metrics

Guardrail Metric	Control	Treatment	Relative Diff	Threshold	Status
e.g., page load time	value	value	%	< 5% regression	Pass/Fail
e.g., error rate	value	value	%	< 1% increase	Pass/Fail

Step 4: Validity Checks

Verify the experiment ran correctly:

Check	Result	Status
Sample ratio mismatch (SRM)	Expected vs. actual split	Pass/Fail
Pre-experiment balance	Metric values before treatment	Balanced/Imbalanced
Novelty/primacy effects	Trend over experiment duration	Detected/Not detected
Interaction effects	Conflicts with concurrent experiments	None/Detected
Data quality	Missing data, logging issues, bot traffic	Clean/Issues found

Step 5: Interpretation

Translate statistical results into business meaning:

Question	Answer
Did the treatment work?	Yes/No/Inconclusive -- with supporting evidence
Is the effect practically significant?	Is the observed lift large enough to matter for the business?
Who benefited most?	Segment-level analysis (platform, region, user type)
Were there negative side effects?	Guardrail metric degradation or segment-level harm
What explains the result?	Causal mechanism or behavioral hypothesis
What don't we know?	Limitations, confounds, or unanswered questions

Step 6: Recommendation

Provide a clear recommendation:

Decision	Criteria
Ship	Primary metric significantly positive, no guardrail failures, practically significant lift
Iterate	Directionally positive but not significant, or significant but with guardrail concerns
Do not ship	No improvement, negative impact, or guardrail failures
Extend experiment	Insufficient power, inconclusive results, need more data

Output Format

Structure the readout for stakeholder consumption:

1. TL;DR -- one-paragraph summary: what we tested, what happened, what we recommend (lead with the decision)
2. Experiment Overview -- hypothesis, metrics, duration, and population
3. Results Summary -- primary and secondary metric tables
4. Validity Checks -- confirmation the experiment ran correctly
5. Segment Analysis -- how results varied across key dimensions
6. Interpretation -- what the results mean for the business
7. Recommendation -- ship, iterate, or do not ship, with rationale
8. Next Steps -- follow-up experiments, monitoring plan, or rollout strategy
9. Appendix -- detailed statistical tables, methodology notes, and raw data references

Quality Checklist

• Hypothesis is stated clearly and was defined before the experiment ran
• Primary metric was pre-registered, not chosen post-hoc
• Sample size and runtime met the pre-calculated requirements
• Validity checks (SRM, balance, novelty) have been performed
• Confidence intervals are reported alongside p-values
• Practical significance is discussed, not just statistical significance
• Guardrail metrics are checked and reported
• Segment analysis looks for heterogeneous treatment effects
• Recommendation is clear, actionable, and supported by evidence
• Limitations and caveats are honestly stated

Edge Cases

• Under-powered experiments: Report observed effect size and confidence interval; recommend extending rather than drawing conclusions from noise
• Multiple testing: Apply correction methods and report both corrected and uncorrected p-values; be transparent about the number of metrics tested
• Significant guardrail regression: Even if the primary metric is positive, flag the guardrail failure prominently and discuss trade-offs
• Novelty or primacy effects: If the time-series trend shows decay or ramp-up, note this and recommend waiting for stabilization before deciding
• Contradictory results across segments: Report overall and segment results; do not cherry-pick favorable segments unless there is a pre-registered hypothesis for heterogeneous effects
• Experiments stopped early: Flag the risk of inflated effect sizes and recommend caution in interpretation