peopleanalyst

A story track · bring data to play it

Post-intervention review (the follow-up every story above earns)

The Receipt

We acted. Did it work? — answered with attribution honesty. This is the track — the ordered card-slots this story needs, laid out as a hypothesis before any data exists. Bring data and the engine confirms each slot, or hands the story off down a branch.

the story · before any data

the hero

A sponsor who funded the fix and stood behind it — wants a straight answer: did it work?.

the villain

Victory theater — the post-intervention review that declares success by enthusiasm

the problem, felt at three levels

  • External · The number moved — but so did the market, the season, and three other initiatives.
  • Internal · The discomfort of half-believing your own success story.
  • Philosophical · An organization that can't tell whether its fixes work will keep paying for the ones that don't.

the plan

  1. 1Replay the bet as stated (no quiet goalpost moves)
  2. 2Test the delta past the cutoff
  3. 3Convict or exonerate the rivals — then decide: scale, adjust, or stop

if nothing changes

Skip the receipt and every future budget argument is theology: the fixes that work starve while the ones with better stories feast.

success

A decision — scale, adjust, or stop — with caveats attached and credibility banked.

From a company that funds stories about its fixes — to one whose fixes earn their funding.

the screenplay · the sequence of scenes it needs

Act I — The World

what we did, what we expected

THE REASSURANCE

the prior story's BET, replayed

What was the bet, on the record?

fills with

a computed step (calculator / decision) — not a single card

the handle · Hold ourselves to the stated target.

Act II — The Forces

the before/after

SO

THE RECEIPT

the after

Did the number move past the cutoff?

fills with

Something changed — and it stuck

or any card of form: falling · rising · step_change

the handle · The trend bent or it didn't — say which.

BUT

THE EXONERATION

rival explanations, surfaced not buried

What else could explain it?

fills with

a computed step (calculator / decision) — not a single card

the handle · Claim only what survives the rivals.

Act III — The Choice

double down, adjust, or stop

WHICH MEANS

THE BET

the continuation decision

Scale it, fix it, or end it?

fills with

a computed step (calculator / decision) — not a single card

the handle · Receipts fund the next bet.

the resolution · what this story exists to produce

Scale / adjust / stop — decided on evidence, with the attribution caveats attached.

What next? What else?

More certainty is priced, not promised — the next steps, each a known cost against the decision:

  • comparison-group design for the next intervention
  • another period of post data
  • pre-register the next bet's target

what it needs to be told

pre/post series on the target metrictreated vs comparison populations where possiblethe original bet's stated target

told differently by altitude

exec · manager · analyst variants forthcoming

provenance · the framework (the accountability beat every engagement should end with)

The driving question: Did the intervention move the number — and can we honestly say it was us?

One story from the database — assembled from the shared deck of scenes. Browse the stories · browse the deck · bring your own data.