Artifact: Build-Measure-Learn Decision — Kestrel Suggested Schedule

Pivot-or-persevere decision after the greedy-scheduler MVP shipped -- exercises co-13. Kestrel is a fictional product; every quoted number, question, or finding here is an illustrative, constructed example, not real data or a real transcript.

Hypothesis: managers will trust and act on an auto-suggested schedule enough to keep it as a starting point rather than deleting it and building from scratch.

Measurement: 65% of managers who saw a suggested schedule kept it and edited it rather than discarding it; when separately asked whether they'd pay extra for the feature as a premium add-on, only 20% said yes.

Decision: persevere on the suggestion mechanism itself -- 65% real usage confirms managers do trust and act on it, so it stays and continues to improve. Pivot away from the premium- add-on pricing model that was originally proposed alongside it -- 20% willingness-to-pay is too low to justify gating it behind an upsell; instead, bundle the suggestion feature into the existing plan as a retention driver, where its value is capturing managers who'd otherwise churn from scheduling friction, not a new revenue line.