id: '117'
narrative_anchor_date: '2028-01-01'
test: Create a concise two-stage evidence-maturation case note for Lifecycle Systems training about the
  onboarding-timing analysis. Contrast the initial provisional cut with the later sharpened read, preserving
  the group definitions, observed churn rates, sample-strength context, and the reason the first read
  was not yet decision-ready. Close by explaining how the later interpretation informed the test direction,
  while clearly avoiding a causal claim from the cohort cut alone. Use a clear title and a skimmable structure.
load_bearing_facts:
- 326
- 328
- 329
- 330
expected_tool_calls:
- create_doc
grade:
  type: tool_trace
  config:
    check_version: 2
    today: '2028-01-01'
    semantic_judge_version: 2
    assertions:
    - type: field_equals
      tool: create_doc
      action_id: create_case_note
      path: result.ok
      value: true
      check_id: riley_117_00
    - type: field_llm_judge
      tool: create_doc
      action_id: create_case_note
      path: args
      criterion: 'The document clearly presents the first stage as provisional and accurately distinguishes
        the two activation-state groups: users activated before day 7 who received the touch post-activation
        had about 3.1% churn, while users still unactivated at day 7 who received it pre-activation had
        about 7.8% churn. It must explain that the sample was still small/flimsy, making the first read
        not yet decision-ready.


        The document presents the later sharpened activation-state cut as a distinct second stage, reporting
        n=210, about 3.1% churn among users activated before the onboarding touch, about 7.8% churn among
        users past day 7 but still pre-activation, and the resulting 4.7 percentage-point spread.


        The document explains that the sharpened read suggested the literal calendar-day-7 email was poorly
        timed for mid-segment users who had not activated and helped motivate testing an activation-triggered
        send rather than retaining a fixed calendar-day schedule. It must frame the cohort evidence as
        suggestive or operationally decision-useful, not as proof that the email caused the churn difference.


        The title is clear and relevant to a two-stage evidence-maturation case note about the onboarding-timing
        analysis.'
      check_id: riley_117_01
mock_state: {}