Pilot the $129 anchor with new annual-plan buyers before changing public pricing.
The price increase has credible upside for ROI-led buyers, but current evidence does not support a broad public rollout.
SupportedDirectionalUnknown
Interactive example
Run a decision rehearsal.
Start with the loaded example or enter your own decision. No login is required; sign in only to save private history.
Source boundary: example responses are synthetic hypotheses, not customer research or promises of future behavior.
B4MathDecision rehearsal
Example loadedFictional sample
02
Decision analysisPro plan: $99 to $129
Decision signalConditional go
Viable-outcome range56-72%Goal met under current assumptions
Evidence confidenceDirectional58 / 100 coverage
Agentic analysis
0%
Six specialists are stress-testing the decision.
Structuring the brief and its evidence boundary.
- 01 / Brief analystQueued
- 02 / Evidence auditorQueued
- 03 / Segment modelQueued
- 04 / Scenario stress testQueued
- 05 / Red-team reviewQueued
- 06 / Decision editorQueued
Decision range
Conditional-go threshold 62Where the decision holds, narrows, or breaks.
Upside
26-36%
Base
30-40%
Break
10-18%
Analysis workstreams
CompleteSix explicit steps, one inspectable memo.
Custom instruction
- Brief analystPricing change / Seed-stage SaaS
- Evidence auditorDirectional / 58 coverage
- Segment model4 customer groups
- Scenario stress test4 exclusive branches
- Red-team reviewValue-proof gap
- Decision editorConditional go
Reasoning traceInspect how the evidence changes the recommendationOpen trace
Assumption ledger
Inspect what the result depends on.
Facts, supplied evidence, model assumptions, weak claims, and missing information remain separate.
Missing informationObserved willingness to pay at the proposed anchor.
This is the highest-value evidence gap because it can reverse the recommendation.
Customer groups
Different buyers, different reactions.
Relevance is a modeling weight, not a claim about real market share. All example segments are fictional.
Scenario branches
Conditions and consequences, side by side.
Ranges show uncertainty within each branch. Branches are mutually exclusive descriptions of the rollout outcome.
Hold public pricing and test a $119 annual-plan anchor first.
Lower upside, higher reversibility, and a smaller evidence requirement.
Sensitivity analysis
See what can change the decision.
This preview adjusts the displayed scenario model only. Rerun after editing the underlying evidence.
Decision memo / Fictional sampleNorthstar CRM
Directional56-72%
Conditional go
Pilot the $129 anchor with new annual-plan buyers before changing public pricing.
The price increase has credible upside for ROI-led buyers, but current evidence does not support a broad public rollout.
- Strongest support
- Annual-plan buyers already frame the product against avoided research and launch cost.
- Main downside
- Value proof is weaker than the size of the price increase.
- Recommendation changes if
- Hold the price if fewer than 5 of 15 qualified buyers accept the annual anchor.
- Missing evidence
- Observed willingness to pay at $129 and renewal response by cohort.
- Next cheapest test
- 15 buyer conversations and 5 written annual-plan commitments.
- Suggested rollout
- Offer the new anchor to net-new annual buyers and preserve existing contracts.
- Metrics to monitor
- Qualified conversion, annual-plan share, sales-cycle length, objection mix, and 90-day churn.
- Stop conditions
- Stop after 15 qualified conversations if acceptance remains below five commitments.
- Alternative
- Hold public pricing and test a $119 annual-plan anchor first.