This one is basically five interviews in a single prompt.
Structure your answer by first defining the experiment's scope (eligibility, randomization, arms) and then detailing metrics, analysis, and decision rules. Emphasize practical considerations like noncompliance, spillover, and heterogeneity, and finish with the sample size calculation. Show a balance between statistical rigor and business context.
Pro tip: When discussing heterogeneous effects, propose a pre-registered subgroup analysis plan to avoid false positives, and suggest using a holdout group for long-term quality monitoring. Also, mention that the sample size calculation assumes no clustering or stratification effects, so you'd inflate the sample size to account for design effects.
Specify who is eligible (e.g., paperwork-complete candidates who haven't taken first action) and the randomization unit (e.g., candidate-level). Discuss stratification by motivation type (e.g., high vs. low intent) to improve power and enable subgroup analysis.
Outline arms: control (no bonus), bonus upfront (cash or queue priority given immediately), bonus after first action (given upon completion), and staged (e.g., partial upfront, partial after). Ensure arms are mutually exclusive and cover the key hypotheses.
Primary metric: first action within 14 days. Secondary metrics: time-to-action, completion rate, candidate satisfaction. Guardrails: quality of actions (e.g., fraud rate, error rate), long-term retention, and cost. Define how to measure and monitor them.
Plan for noncompliance (e.g., intent-to-treat vs. per-protocol analysis) and spillover (e.g., cluster randomization if interference likely). Set stopping rules for futility and early success using sequential testing or alpha spending.
Calculate minimum per-arm sample size using two-proportion z-test formula. Then, based on heterogeneous effects, decide whether to roll out broadly or target narrowly (e.g., only high-motivation candidates if effect is concentrated there).
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.