Test 017

We finished the beyond-Q1 decision meeting, and Priya and I are keeping the investigation framework as the standing readout practice for Growth and Customer Success. It stays lightweight: denominator and effect size come before the conclusion, first significance still doesn't justify rollout until the result stabilizes, and lifecycle audience risk stays in the review. We explicitly did not turn it into a companywide mandatory template or a queue where every readout has to run through me, Owen, or Ines. Owen will maintain the standard readout shape and examples, Ines will maintain the lifecycle-risk portion, and that Q1 audit decision is done.

We finished the beyond-Q1 decision meeting, and Priya and I are keeping the investigation framework as the standing readout practice for Growth and Customer Success. It stays lightweight: denominator and effect size come before the conclusion, first significance still doesn't justify rollout until the result stabilizes, and lifecycle audience risk stays in the review. We explicitly did not turn it into a companywide mandatory template or a queue where every readout has to run through me, Owen, or Ines. Owen will maintain the standard readout shape and examples, Ines will maintain the lifecycle-risk portion, and that Q1 audit decision is done.

The retro landed. Priya asked me to make the investigation framework the default Q1 readout practice for Growth and Customer Success, and I agreed, but not as a fully companywide mandatory process. My condition was that the practice be taught and maintained by the team rather than turning into a centralized approval step: Owen owns the standard readout shape, including denominator, effect size, and conclusion order, and Ines owns lifecycle-risk review language. We also kept effect size visible and preserved the rule that first significance is followed by a stabilization cohort before rollout.