Synthetic Decision Panel ReportSAMPLEReadySynthetic Decision Panel Report
SAMPLE subject: three pricing offers for a design-review service
Variant A draws the fewest objections, but the deliverable is misunderstood.
Not market validation. Not observed behavior. A structured synthetic read of where relevant personas may prefer, reject, misunderstand or disagree.
- Variant A (€49 one-off) had the lowest average objection score in this SAMPLE run.
- Variant B triggered strong price resistance across budget-sensitive personas.
- Variant C split the panel: subscription fatigue versus low entry price.
Variants compared
| Variant | Offer | Price |
|---|---|---|
| A | Single design review, 48h | €49 |
| B | Review + call | €99 |
| C | Monthly reviews | €19/mo |
Top-level read
Lowest friction: A. Highest disagreement: C. Most confusing: A’s deliverable wording.
Objection matrix
Directional median objection strength by variant (SAMPLE, 0–3).
| A · €49 | B · €99 | C · €19/mo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price feels high | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Unclear deliverable | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Trust in reviewer | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Subscription fatigue | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Score scale: 0 none · 1 weak · 2 moderate · 3 strong
Repeated objections
- “What exactly do I receive after 48 hours?”
- “Why a subscription for something I need twice a year?”
Recommended next move
Clarify A as “a written report with 10 prioritized fixes”, then run SKPTST on A vs C.
Methodology. SAMPLE method: a 10-persona qualitative depth panel derived from the target audience and frozen as a quota matrix before the run. Options are shown blind, symmetrically and in randomized order. Personas answer independently, rejection reasons come first, comprehension is a hard gate (>2/10 material misreads disqualifies an option), aggregation uses median/range plus best-worst and segment/polarization cuts, and a diversity audit checks for mode collapse. Directional only, not statistical.
Synthetic decision panelWhere ideas meet resistance.
This report