ab-test-setup

# A/B Test Setup

You are an expert in experimentation and A/B testing. Your goal is to help design tests that produce statistically valid, actionable results.

## Initial Assessment

**Check for product marketing context first:**
If `.agents/product-marketing-context.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.

Before designing a test, understand:

1. **Test Context** - What are you trying to improve? What change are you considering?
2. **Current State** - Baseline conversion rate? Current traffic volume?
3. **Constraints** - Technical complexity? Timeline? Tools available?

---

## Core Principles

### 1. Start with a Hypothesis
- Not just "let's see what happens"
- Specific prediction of outcome
- Based on reasoning or data

### 2. Test One Thing
- Single variable per test
- Otherwise you don't know what worked

### 3. Statistical Rigor
- Pre-determine sample size
- Don't peek and stop early
- Commit to the methodology

### 4. Measure What Matters
- Primary metric tied to business value
- Secondary metrics for context
- Guardrail metrics to prevent harm

---

## Hypothesis Framework

### Structure

```
Because [observation/data],
we believe [change]
will cause [expected outcome]
for [audience].
We'll know this is true when [metrics].
```

### Example

**Weak**: "Changing the button color might increase clicks."

**Strong**: "Because users report difficulty finding the CTA (per heatmaps and feedback), we believe making the button larger and using contrasting color will increase CTA clicks by 15%+ for new visitors. We'll measure click-through rate from page view to signup start."

---

## Test Types

| Type | Description | Traffic Needed |
|------|-------------|----------------|
| A/B | Two versions, single change | Moderate |
| A/B/n | Multiple variants | Higher |
| MVT | Multiple changes in combinations | Very high |
| Split URL | Different URLs for variants | Moderate |

---

## Sample Size

### Quick Reference

| Baseline | 10% Lift | 20% Lift | 50% Lift |
|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| 1% | 150k/variant | 39k/variant | 6k/variant |
| 3% | 47k/variant | 12k/variant | 2k/variant |
| 5% | 27k/variant | 7k/variant | 1.2k/variant |
| 10% | 12k/variant | 3k/variant | 550/variant |

**Calculators:**
- [Evan Miller's](https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html)
- [Optimizely's](https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/)

**For detailed sample size tables and duration calculations**: See [references/sample-size-guide.md](references/sample-size-guide.md)

---

## Metrics Selection

### Primary Metric
- Single metric that matters most
- Directly tied to hypothesis
- What you'll use to call the test

### Secondary Metrics
- Support primary metric interpretation
- Explain why/how the change worked

### Guardrail Metrics
- Things that shouldn't get worse
- Stop test if significantly negative

### Example: Pricing Page Test
- **Primary**: Plan selection rate
- **Secondary**: Time on page, plan distribution
- **Guardrail**: Support tickets, refund rate

---

## Designing Variants

### What to Vary

| Category | Examples |
|----------|----------|
| Headlines/Copy | Message angle, value prop, specificity, tone |
| Visual Design | Layout, color, images, hierarchy |
| CTA | Button copy, size, placement, number |
| Content | Information included, order, amount, social proof |

### Best Practices
- Single, meaningful change
- Bold enough to make a difference
- True to the hypothesis

---

## Traffic Allocation

| Approach | Split | When to Use |
|----------|-------|-------------|
| Standard | 50/50 | Default for A/B |
| Conservative | 90/10, 80/20 | Limit risk of bad variant |
| Ramping | Start small, increase | Technical risk mitigation |

**Considerations:**
- Consistency: Users see same variant on return
- Balanced exposure across time of day/week

---

## Implementation

### Client-Side
- JavaScript modifies page after load
- Quick to implement, can cause flicker
- Tools: PostHog, Optimizely, VWO

### Server-Side
- Variant determined before render
- No flicker, requires dev work
- Tools: PostHog, LaunchDarkly, Split

---

## Running the Test

### Pre-Launch Checklist
- [ ] Hypothesis documented
- [ ] Primary metric defined
- [ ] Sample size calculated
- [ ] Variants implemented correctly
- [ ] Tracking verified
- [ ] QA completed on all variants

### During the Test

**DO:**
- Monitor for technical issues
- Check segment quality
- Document external factors

**Avoid:**
- Peek at results and stop early
- Make changes to variants
- Add traffic from new sources

### The Peeking Problem
Looking at results before reaching sample size and stopping early leads to false positives and wrong decisions. Pre-commit to sample size and trust the process.

---

## Analyzing Results

### Statistical Significance
- 95% confidence = p-value < 0.05
- Means <5% chance result is random
- Not a guarantee—just a threshold

### Analysis Checklist

1. **Reach sample size?** If not, result is preliminary
2. **Statistically significant?** Check confidence intervals
3. **Effect size meaningful?** Compare to MDE, project impact
4. **Secondary metrics consistent?** Support the primary?
5. **Guardrail concerns?** Anything get worse?
6. **Segment differences?** Mobile vs. desktop? New vs. returning?

### Interpreting Results

| Result | Conclusion |
|--------|------------|
| Significant winner | Implement variant |
| Significant loser | Keep control, learn why |
| No significant difference | Need more traffic or bolder test |
| Mixed signals | Dig deeper, maybe segment |

---

## Documentation

Document every test with:
- Hypothesis
- Variants (with screenshots)
- Results (sample, metrics, significance)
- Decision and learnings

**For templates**: See [references/test-templates.md](references/test-templates.md)

---

## Common Mistakes

### Test Design
- Testing too small a change (undetectable)
- Testing too many things (can't isolate)
- No clear hypothesis

### Execution
- Stopping early
- Changing things mid-test
- Not checking implementation

### Analysis
- Ignoring confidence intervals
- Cherry-picking segments
- Over-interpreting inconclusive results

---

## Task-Specific Questions

1. What's your current conversion rate?
2. How much traffic does this page get?
3. What change are you considering and why?
4. What's the smallest improvement worth detecting?
5. What tools do you have for testing?
6. Have you tested this area before?

---

## Related Skills

- **page-cro**: For generating test ideas based on CRO principles
- **analytics-tracking**: For setting up test measurement
- **copywriting**: For creating variant copy

{
  "skill_name": "ab-test-setup",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "I want to A/B test our homepage headline. We currently say 'The All-in-One Project Management Tool' and want to test something benefit-focused. We get about 15,000 visitors/month and our current signup rate is 3.2%.",
      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing-context.md first. Should build a proper hypothesis using the framework: 'Because [observation], we believe [change] will cause [outcome], which we'll measure by [metric].' Should identify this as an A/B test (two variants). Should calculate or reference sample size needs based on 15,000 monthly visitors and 3.2% baseline. Should define primary metric (signup rate), secondary metrics, and guardrail metrics. Should warn about the peeking problem and recommend a fixed test duration. Should provide the test plan in the structured output format.",
      "assertions": [
        "Checks for product-marketing-context.md",
        "Uses the hypothesis framework with observation, belief, outcome, and metric",
        "Identifies as A/B test type",
        "Addresses sample size calculation based on traffic and baseline rate",
        "Defines primary metric (signup rate)",
        "Defines secondary and guardrail metrics",
        "Warns about the peeking problem",
        "Provides structured test plan output"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "we want to test like 4 different CTA button colors on our pricing page. is that a good idea?",
      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should identify this as an A/B/n test (multiple variants). Should caution that testing 4 variants requires significantly more traffic than a simple A/B test. Should reference the sample size quick reference showing traffic multipliers for multiple variants. Should question whether button color alone is likely to produce meaningful lift vs testing CTA copy, placement, or surrounding context. Should recommend either reducing to 2 variants or ensuring sufficient traffic. Should still provide hypothesis framework and test setup if proceeding.",
      "assertions": [
        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
        "Identifies as A/B/n test (multiple variants)",
        "Cautions about increased traffic needs for 4 variants",
        "References sample size requirements",
        "Questions whether button color alone is high-impact",
        "Suggests alternative higher-impact elements to test",
        "Provides hypothesis framework"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "Our test has been running for 3 days and Variant B is winning with 95% confidence. Should we call it?",
      "expected_output": "Should immediately address the peeking problem. Should explain that checking results early inflates false positive rates. Should recommend running for the full pre-calculated duration regardless of early results. Should explain why early significance can be misleading (regression to the mean, day-of-week effects, audience mix shifts). Should provide guidance on when it IS appropriate to stop early (sequential testing methods). Should recommend the pre-test commitment to duration.",
      "assertions": [
        "Addresses the peeking problem directly",
        "Explains why early significance is misleading",
        "Recommends running for full pre-calculated duration",
        "Mentions day-of-week effects or audience mix shifts",
        "Explains false positive rate inflation from peeking",
        "Mentions sequential testing as alternative approach"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "prompt": "Help me set up a multivariate test on our landing page. I want to test the headline, hero image, and CTA button simultaneously.",
      "expected_output": "Should identify this as a Multivariate Test (MVT). Should explain that MVT tests combinations of elements and requires much more traffic than A/B tests. Should calculate or reference traffic needs (combinations multiply: e.g., 2 headlines × 2 images × 2 CTAs = 8 combinations). Should recommend MVT only if traffic supports it, otherwise suggest sequential A/B tests. Should build hypotheses for each element being tested. Should define interaction effects to watch for. Should provide structured test plan.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies as multivariate test (MVT)",
        "Explains MVT tests combinations of elements",
        "Addresses dramatically higher traffic requirements",
        "Calculates number of combinations",
        "Suggests sequential A/B tests as alternative if traffic insufficient",
        "Builds hypotheses for each element",
        "Provides structured test plan"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "prompt": "What metrics should I track for an A/B test on our trial signup page? We're testing a longer form (adds company size and role fields) against the current short form.",
      "expected_output": "Should apply the metrics selection framework with three tiers: primary, secondary, and guardrail metrics. Primary: form completion rate (the direct conversion metric). Secondary: lead quality metrics (SQL conversion rate, activation rate post-signup). Guardrail: overall signup volume (ensure longer form doesn't tank total signups below acceptable threshold). Should explain the tradeoff between conversion quantity and lead quality. Should note that this test needs longer observation window to measure downstream metrics.",
      "assertions": [
        "Applies three-tier metric framework (primary, secondary, guardrail)",
        "Identifies form completion rate as primary metric",
        "Identifies lead quality as secondary metric",
        "Defines guardrail metrics to protect against negative outcomes",
        "Explains quantity vs quality tradeoff",
        "Notes need for longer observation window for downstream metrics"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "prompt": "Can you help me write copy for our new landing page? We want to test it against the current version.",
      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is primarily a copywriting task, not a test setup task. Should defer to or cross-reference the copywriting skill for writing the actual copy. May help frame the test hypothesis and setup, but should make clear that copywriting is the right skill for creating the page copy itself.",
      "assertions": [
        "Recognizes this as primarily a copywriting task",
        "References or defers to copywriting skill",
        "Does not attempt to write full page copy using test setup patterns",
        "May offer to help with test hypothesis and setup"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 7,
      "prompt": "We ran an A/B test on our pricing page for 4 weeks. Control: 2.1% conversion. Variant: 2.4% conversion. 12,000 visitors per variant. Is this statistically significant? Should we ship it?",
      "expected_output": "Should evaluate the results against statistical significance criteria. Should calculate or estimate whether the sample size is sufficient to detect a 0.3 percentage point lift from a 2.1% baseline (this is a ~14% relative lift). Should reference the 95% confidence threshold. Should discuss practical significance vs statistical significance. Should recommend whether to ship, continue testing, or iterate. Should consider segment analysis if results are borderline.",
      "assertions": [
        "Evaluates against statistical significance criteria",
        "Addresses whether sample size is sufficient for this effect size",
        "References 95% confidence threshold",
        "Distinguishes statistical significance from practical significance",
        "Provides clear recommendation on shipping",
        "Suggests segment analysis or follow-up if borderline"
      ],
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}

# Sample Size Guide

Reference for calculating sample sizes and test duration.

## Contents
- Sample Size Fundamentals (required inputs, what these mean)
- Sample Size Quick Reference Tables
- Duration Calculator (formula, examples, minimum duration rules, maximum duration guidelines)
- Online Calculators
- Adjusting for Multiple Variants
- Common Sample Size Mistakes
- When Sample Size Requirements Are Too High
- Sequential Testing
- Quick Decision Framework

## Sample Size Fundamentals

### Required Inputs

1. **Baseline conversion rate**: Your current rate
2. **Minimum detectable effect (MDE)**: Smallest change worth detecting
3. **Statistical significance level**: Usually 95% (α = 0.05)
4. **Statistical power**: Usually 80% (β = 0.20)

### What These Mean

**Baseline conversion rate**: If your page converts at 5%, that's your baseline.

**MDE (Minimum Detectable Effect)**: The smallest improvement you care about detecting. Set this based on:
- Business impact (is a 5% lift meaningful?)
- Implementation cost (worth the effort?)
- Realistic expectations (what have past tests shown?)

**Statistical significance (95%)**: Means there's less than 5% chance the observed difference is due to random chance.

**Statistical power (80%)**: Means if there's a real effect of size MDE, you have 80% chance of detecting it.

---

## Sample Size Quick Reference Tables

### Conversion Rate: 1%

| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| 5% (1% → 1.05%) | 1,500,000 | 3,000,000 |
| 10% (1% → 1.1%) | 380,000 | 760,000 |
| 20% (1% → 1.2%) | 97,000 | 194,000 |
| 50% (1% → 1.5%) | 16,000 | 32,000 |
| 100% (1% → 2%) | 4,200 | 8,400 |

### Conversion Rate: 3%

| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| 5% (3% → 3.15%) | 480,000 | 960,000 |
| 10% (3% → 3.3%) | 120,000 | 240,000 |
| 20% (3% → 3.6%) | 31,000 | 62,000 |
| 50% (3% → 4.5%) | 5,200 | 10,400 |
| 100% (3% → 6%) | 1,400 | 2,800 |

### Conversion Rate: 5%

| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| 5% (5% → 5.25%) | 280,000 | 560,000 |
| 10% (5% → 5.5%) | 72,000 | 144,000 |
| 20% (5% → 6%) | 18,000 | 36,000 |
| 50% (5% → 7.5%) | 3,100 | 6,200 |
| 100% (5% → 10%) | 810 | 1,620 |

### Conversion Rate: 10%

| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| 5% (10% → 10.5%) | 130,000 | 260,000 |
| 10% (10% → 11%) | 34,000 | 68,000 |
| 20% (10% → 12%) | 8,700 | 17,400 |
| 50% (10% → 15%) | 1,500 | 3,000 |
| 100% (10% → 20%) | 400 | 800 |

### Conversion Rate: 20%

| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| 5% (20% → 21%) | 60,000 | 120,000 |
| 10% (20% → 22%) | 16,000 | 32,000 |
| 20% (20% → 24%) | 4,000 | 8,000 |
| 50% (20% → 30%) | 700 | 1,400 |
| 100% (20% → 40%) | 200 | 400 |

---

## Duration Calculator

### Formula

```
Duration (days) = (Sample per variant × Number of variants) / (Daily traffic × % exposed)
```

### Examples

**Scenario 1: High-traffic page**
- Need: 10,000 per variant (2 variants = 20,000 total)
- Daily traffic: 5,000 visitors
- 100% exposed to test
- Duration: 20,000 / 5,000 = **4 days**

**Scenario 2: Medium-traffic page**
- Need: 30,000 per variant (60,000 total)
- Daily traffic: 2,000 visitors
- 100% exposed
- Duration: 60,000 / 2,000 = **30 days**

**Scenario 3: Low-traffic with partial exposure**
- Need: 15,000 per variant (30,000 total)
- Daily traffic: 500 visitors
- 50% exposed to test
- Effective daily: 250
- Duration: 30,000 / 250 = **120 days** (too long!)

### Minimum Duration Rules

Even with sufficient sample size, run tests for at least:
- **1 full week**: To capture day-of-week variation
- **2 business cycles**: If B2B (weekday vs. weekend patterns)
- **Through paydays**: If e-commerce (beginning/end of month)

### Maximum Duration Guidelines

Avoid running tests longer than 4-8 weeks:
- Novelty effects wear off
- External factors intervene
- Opportunity cost of other tests

---

## Online Calculators

### Recommended Tools

**Evan Miller's Calculator**
https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html
- Simple interface
- Bookmark-worthy

**Optimizely's Calculator**
https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/
- Business-friendly language
- Duration estimates

**AB Test Guide Calculator**
https://www.abtestguide.com/calc/
- Includes Bayesian option
- Multiple test types

**VWO Duration Calculator**
https://vwo.com/tools/ab-test-duration-calculator/
- Duration-focused
- Good for planning

---

## Adjusting for Multiple Variants

With more than 2 variants (A/B/n tests), you need more sample:

| Variants | Multiplier |
|----------|------------|
| 2 (A/B) | 1x |
| 3 (A/B/C) | ~1.5x |
| 4 (A/B/C/D) | ~2x |
| 5+ | Consider reducing variants |

**Why?** More comparisons increase chance of false positives. You're comparing:
- A vs B
- A vs C
- B vs C (sometimes)

Apply Bonferroni correction or use tools that handle this automatically.

---

## Common Sample Size Mistakes

### 1. Underpowered tests
**Problem**: Not enough sample to detect realistic effects
**Fix**: Be realistic about MDE, get more traffic, or don't test

### 2. Overpowered tests
**Problem**: Waiting for sample size when you already have significance
**Fix**: This is actually fine—you committed to sample size, honor it

### 3. Wrong baseline rate
**Problem**: Using wrong conversion rate for calculation
**Fix**: Use the specific metric and page, not site-wide averages

### 4. Ignoring segments
**Problem**: Calculating for full traffic, then analyzing segments
**Fix**: If you plan segment analysis, calculate sample for smallest segment

### 5. Testing too many things
**Problem**: Dividing traffic too many ways
**Fix**: Prioritize ruthlessly, run fewer concurrent tests

---

## When Sample Size Requirements Are Too High

Options when you can't get enough traffic:

1. **Increase MDE**: Accept only detecting larger effects (20%+ lift)
2. **Lower confidence**: Use 90% instead of 95% (risky, document it)
3. **Reduce variants**: Test only the most promising variant
4. **Combine traffic**: Test across multiple similar pages
5. **Test upstream**: Test earlier in funnel where traffic is higher
6. **Don't test**: Make decision based on qualitative data instead
7. **Longer test**: Accept longer duration (weeks/months)

---

## Sequential Testing

If you must check results before reaching sample size:

### What is it?
Statistical method that adjusts for multiple looks at data.

### When to use
- High-risk changes
- Need to stop bad variants early
- Time-sensitive decisions

### Tools that support it
- Optimizely (Stats Accelerator)
- VWO (SmartStats)
- PostHog (Bayesian approach)

### Tradeoff
- More flexibility to stop early
- Slightly larger sample size requirement
- More complex analysis

---

## Quick Decision Framework

### Can I run this test?

```
Daily traffic to page: _____
Baseline conversion rate: _____
MDE I care about: _____

Sample needed per variant: _____ (from tables above)
Days to run: Sample / Daily traffic = _____

If days > 60: Consider alternatives
If days > 30: Acceptable for high-impact tests
If days < 14: Likely feasible
If days < 7: Easy to run, consider running longer anyway
```

# A/B Test Templates Reference

Templates for planning, documenting, and analyzing experiments.

## Contents
- Test Plan Template
- Results Documentation Template
- Test Repository Entry Template
- Quick Test Brief Template
- Stakeholder Update Template
- Experiment Prioritization Scorecard
- Hypothesis Bank Template

## Test Plan Template

```markdown
# A/B Test: [Name]

## Overview
- **Owner**: [Name]
- **Test ID**: [ID in testing tool]
- **Page/Feature**: [What's being tested]
- **Planned dates**: [Start] - [End]

## Hypothesis

Because [observation/data],
we believe [change]
will cause [expected outcome]
for [audience].
We'll know this is true when [metrics].

## Test Design

| Element | Details |
|---------|---------|
| Test type | A/B / A/B/n / MVT |
| Duration | X weeks |
| Sample size | X per variant |
| Traffic allocation | 50/50 |
| Tool | [Tool name] |
| Implementation | Client-side / Server-side |

## Variants

### Control (A)
[Screenshot]
- Current experience
- [Key details about current state]

### Variant (B)
[Screenshot or mockup]
- [Specific change #1]
- [Specific change #2]
- Rationale: [Why we think this will win]

## Metrics

### Primary
- **Metric**: [metric name]
- **Definition**: [how it's calculated]
- **Current baseline**: [X%]
- **Minimum detectable effect**: [X%]

### Secondary
- [Metric 1]: [what it tells us]
- [Metric 2]: [what it tells us]
- [Metric 3]: [what it tells us]

### Guardrails
- [Metric that shouldn't get worse]
- [Another safety metric]

## Segment Analysis Plan
- Mobile vs. desktop
- New vs. returning visitors
- Traffic source
- [Other relevant segments]

## Success Criteria
- Winner: [Primary metric improves by X% with 95% confidence]
- Loser: [Primary metric decreases significantly]
- Inconclusive: [What we'll do if no significant result]

## Pre-Launch Checklist
- [ ] Hypothesis documented and reviewed
- [ ] Primary metric defined and trackable
- [ ] Sample size calculated
- [ ] Test duration estimated
- [ ] Variants implemented correctly
- [ ] Tracking verified in all variants
- [ ] QA completed on all variants
- [ ] Stakeholders informed
- [ ] Calendar hold for analysis date
```

---

## Results Documentation Template

```markdown
# A/B Test Results: [Name]

## Summary
| Element | Value |
|---------|-------|
| Test ID | [ID] |
| Dates | [Start] - [End] |
| Duration | X days |
| Result | Winner / Loser / Inconclusive |
| Decision | [What we're doing] |

## Hypothesis (Reminder)
[Copy from test plan]

## Results

### Sample Size
| Variant | Target | Actual | % of target |
|---------|--------|--------|-------------|
| Control | X | Y | Z% |
| Variant | X | Y | Z% |

### Primary Metric: [Metric Name]
| Variant | Value | 95% CI | vs. Control |
|---------|-------|--------|-------------|
| Control | X% | [X%, Y%] | — |
| Variant | X% | [X%, Y%] | +X% |

**Statistical significance**: p = X.XX (95% = sig / not sig)
**Practical significance**: [Is this lift meaningful for the business?]

### Secondary Metrics

| Metric | Control | Variant | Change | Significant? |
|--------|---------|---------|--------|--------------|
| [Metric 1] | X | Y | +Z% | Yes/No |
| [Metric 2] | X | Y | +Z% | Yes/No |

### Guardrail Metrics

| Metric | Control | Variant | Change | Concern? |
|--------|---------|---------|--------|----------|
| [Metric 1] | X | Y | +Z% | Yes/No |

### Segment Analysis

**Mobile vs. Desktop**
| Segment | Control | Variant | Lift |
|---------|---------|---------|------|
| Mobile | X% | Y% | +Z% |
| Desktop | X% | Y% | +Z% |

**New vs. Returning**
| Segment | Control | Variant | Lift |
|---------|---------|---------|------|
| New | X% | Y% | +Z% |
| Returning | X% | Y% | +Z% |

## Interpretation

### What happened?
[Explanation of results in plain language]

### Why do we think this happened?
[Analysis and reasoning]

### Caveats
[Any limitations, external factors, or concerns]

## Decision

**Winner**: [Control / Variant]

**Action**: [Implement variant / Keep control / Re-test]

**Timeline**: [When changes will be implemented]

## Learnings

### What we learned
- [Key insight 1]
- [Key insight 2]

### What to test next
- [Follow-up test idea 1]
- [Follow-up test idea 2]

### Impact
- **Projected lift**: [X% improvement in Y metric]
- **Business impact**: [Revenue, conversions, etc.]
```

---

## Test Repository Entry Template

For tracking all tests in a central location:

```markdown
| Test ID | Name | Page | Dates | Primary Metric | Result | Lift | Link |
|---------|------|------|-------|----------------|--------|------|------|
| 001 | Hero headline test | Homepage | 1/1-1/15 | CTR | Winner | +12% | [Link] |
| 002 | Pricing table layout | Pricing | 1/10-1/31 | Plan selection | Loser | -5% | [Link] |
| 003 | Signup form fields | Signup | 2/1-2/14 | Completion | Inconclusive | +2% | [Link] |
```

---

## Quick Test Brief Template

For simple tests that don't need full documentation:

```markdown
## [Test Name]

**What**: [One sentence description]
**Why**: [One sentence hypothesis]
**Metric**: [Primary metric]
**Duration**: [X weeks]
**Result**: [TBD / Winner / Loser / Inconclusive]
**Learnings**: [Key takeaway]
```

---

## Stakeholder Update Template

```markdown
## A/B Test Update: [Name]

**Status**: Running / Complete
**Days remaining**: X (or complete)
**Current sample**: X% of target

### Preliminary observations
[What we're seeing - without making decisions yet]

### Next steps
[What happens next]

### Timeline
- [Date]: Analysis complete
- [Date]: Decision and recommendation
- [Date]: Implementation (if winner)
```

---

## Experiment Prioritization Scorecard

For deciding which tests to run:

| Factor | Weight | Test A | Test B | Test C |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Potential impact | 30% | | | |
| Confidence in hypothesis | 25% | | | |
| Ease of implementation | 20% | | | |
| Risk if wrong | 15% | | | |
| Strategic alignment | 10% | | | |
| **Total** | | | | |

Scoring: 1-5 (5 = best)

---

## Hypothesis Bank Template

For collecting test ideas:

```markdown
| ID | Page/Area | Observation | Hypothesis | Potential Impact | Status |
|----|-----------|-------------|------------|------------------|--------|
| H1 | Homepage | Low scroll depth | Shorter hero will increase scroll | High | Testing |
| H2 | Pricing | Users compare plans | Comparison table will help | Medium | Backlog |
| H3 | Signup | Drop-off at email | Social login will increase completion | Medium | Backlog |
```