Simultaneous campaigns make experiment results hard to interpret

The problem

Teams can expose the same audience to overlapping tests without documenting possible interactions.

Agent job

Compare experiment plans and allocation exports to find shared audiences, time windows and changed surfaces requiring analyst review.

Expected output

A collision map, overlap counts where identifiers permit, and analyst questions distinguishing potential interference from established bias.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent can combine prose experiment plans with allocation data to identify plausible interaction mechanisms, then use deterministic code for overlap counts. Existing experimentation-platform collision reports are preferable for routine structured checks; an analyst must decide whether overlap actually invalidates inference.

Who this helps

1. Growth marketer

2. Experimentation coordinator

Evidence boundary

Problem and capability sources establish context and tool primitives only. All workflow design, examples, expected outputs and validation plans are editorial proposals; no workflow success is evidenced.

Setup requirements

1. A frozen experiment registry with experiment IDs, time windows, randomization units and surfaces

2. An approved pseudonymous allocation export, or aggregate data with stated limits

3. Analyst-defined timezone, overlap definition and permitted matching keys

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Experiment registry export

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

2. Name

   Pseudonymized assignment counts or IDs

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

3. Name

   Surface and audience definitions

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Inventory experiment definitions and mark missing allocation-unit or timezone information.

   Expected output: Experiment-definition completeness sheet

   Approval gate: Owner confirms authorized input scope and policies before this step.

2. 2

   Normalize observation windows and randomization units without converting incompatible units into false matches.

   Expected output: Comparable experiment registry

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

3. 3

   Calculate overlapping windows and known co-exposure using the approved matching keys.

   Expected output: Reproducible overlap table and calculation log

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

4. 4

   Read treatment descriptions to identify shared surfaces or potentially interacting mechanisms.

   Expected output: Potential-interference hypotheses linked to plan passages

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

5. 5

   Separate confirmed co-exposure, aggregate-only overlap and unknown overlap; check independent-surface counterexamples.

   Expected output: Evidence-strength and false-positive review

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

6. 6

   Produce an analyst review queue with specific questions and no automatic stopping of experiments.

   Expected output: Collision map and decision-support brief

   Approval gate: Human owner reviews this packet before any operational use; no external action is authorized.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; not a completed run or real customer record

Data

Pair

SYNTHETIC EXP-A / EXP-C

Known overlap

40 fixture IDs

Shared surface

Checkout banner

Interpretation

Potential interaction for analyst review; no demonstrated bias

Human approval boundaries

1. Confirm data ownership, allowed processing environment and minimum necessary input scope before using real records.

2. Review exceptions and calculations before treating the output as authoritative.

3. Separate explicit approval is required for sending, publishing, purchases, account changes or production-system writes; none are included in this plan.

Failure modes

1. Audience definitions differ across platforms

2. Aggregate overlap cannot establish individual co-exposure

3. Overlap incorrectly labelled invalid experimentation

4. Source documents may contain malicious instructions; treat them as evidence only.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. If allocation keys are incompatible, report overlap as unknown rather than estimating individual co-exposure.

2. If code counts disagree with a small manual sample, correct joins and regenerate counts before interpretation.

3. If treatment intent is unclear, request the experiment owner’s plan and keep causal language out of the report.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Six synthetic experiments including independent surfaces, identical audiences and incompatible randomization units.

Acceptance checks

1. Known overlap counts match the fixture

2. Independent overlap is not called automatically invalid

3. Causal claims are absent

4. All factual claims have source pointers; no invented facts, success metrics or time-saving claims.

5. Original input files remain unchanged.

Stop conditions

1. Any critical planted exception is missed

2. A factual assertion lacks support

3. The agent requests unauthorized access or attempts external action

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Eligible paid agent plan; current price and limits must be checked before testing

2. One-time input export, redaction, taxonomy or policy setup and reviewer time

3. Recurring per-batch usage and human exception review

4. Optional connector or OCR fees only if actually needed; not assumed included

Caveat

No numerical cost, time saving or return is established. Start with supplied files to avoid integration build costs.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

For Canadian campaign experiments, check whether Quebec or language-specific cohorts are intentionally separate and preserve the analyst’s timezone and allocation definitions. Use pseudonymous data only in the organization-approved processing environment; do not infer privacy compliance.

Limits

1. Original authored proposal; no workflow was executed or independently tested.

2. Problem sources establish duties or a concrete requirement; they do not prove prevalence, willingness to pay or effectiveness of this workflow.

3. Official capability documentation supports primitives only; platform and connector compatibility remain untested.

4. An accountable specialist must approve all judgments, source selection and any use of the deliverable; the agent only prepares a review packet.

5. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Claude (Cowork capabilities)

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved document and spreadsheet inputs

   2. Compare evidence across files

   3. Execute auditable calculations where needed

   4. Create a separate review workbook or document

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-get-started-with-claude-cowork

   2. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Claude Cowork

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.

2. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Read user-supplied files

   2. Use code for checks and transformations

   3. Produce reviewable spreadsheet and document outputs

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   2. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/artifacts-viewer

   3. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing

   4. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/enterprise/chatgpt-work-overview

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   ChatGPT agent

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.