Skip to content
Client Login Start a project
Results

What changed. How it was measured.

We connect decision records to observed outcomes, distinguishing influence, attribution, and measurable impact so performance can be evaluated against evidence.

The decision journey

Follow the decision beyond delivery.

phase 1 Request
01 Need identified The objective or requirement that initiated the interaction.
02 2.84M / mo Decision delivered The result and its supporting explanation reach the intended experience.
phase 2 Engagement
03 96.2% Result viewed Whether the user encountered the recommendation.
04 41.8% Alternatives compared Whether the user examined other eligible options.
05 3.82% Recommendation selected Whether the user acted on the suggested option.
phase 3 Outcome
06 3.61% Action completed Whether the intended transaction, booking, or workflow was completed.
07 −1.8pp returns Outcome retained Whether the result remained successful, was returned, canceled, or otherwise reversed.
08 4.6 / 5 Feedback recorded Available satisfaction signals or other relevant observations.
phase 4 Evaluation
09 +11.4% lift Performance evaluated Observed outcomes compared against the appropriate baseline or control.
10 v14 → v15 Changes validated Proposed improvements tested and reviewed before broader deployment.
Attribution

Three measures. Different conclusions.

Associated with the journey

Influenced

Revenue or outcomes associated with experiences where a Specicon-powered decision was encountered. What it establishes: the decision was present in the journey. It does not establish causation.

Credited under a defined model

Attributed

Revenue or outcomes assigned to a decision using an agreed attribution method and observation window. What it establishes: the decision receives credit under the model. Attribution alone does not prove incremental impact.

Measured against a comparison

Incremental

The estimated change in outcomes relative to a valid control or comparable baseline. What it establishes: evidence of incremental impact, subject to the experiment’s quality and statistical uncertainty.

Experiments & holdouts

Put the improvement to the test.

Controlled comparisons help distinguish genuine performance changes from differences caused by traffic, timing, or customer behavior.

Pilot comparison
Control · 50%Treatment · 50%

A balanced split can support an initial evaluation of the new experience against the existing one. The required sample size and duration depend on traffic, baseline performance, and the size of the effect being tested.

Ongoing comparison
10%Treatment · 90%

An unbalanced split may support continued evaluation while exposing more eligible traffic to the new experience. The allocation must remain appropriate for the experiment and its measurement requirements.

Control group

The established experience. A comparable group continues through the defined baseline experience without the capability being evaluated.

Treatment group

The Specicon-enabled experience. A comparable group receives the new capability under the same defined measurement conditions.

By industry

Different applications. Different measures.

The value of an intelligent experience depends on the problem it addresses. Explore illustrative use cases, the outcomes worth measuring, and the evidence a pilot would need.

{{ c.name }}
{{ c.industry }}
Primary{{ c.primary }}Secondary{{ c.second }}

{{ c.context }}
Results dashboard

Performance, with the comparison visible.

Bring decision activity, customer outcomes, and experiment results into one review, with enough context to understand what each measure establishes.

Decision performanceTreatment vs. ControlCompare the defined primary outcome across the relevant experimental groups.
Decision activityVolume and engagementReview decisions delivered, relevant interactions, and the proportion of results acted upon.
Customer outcomesWhat happened afterwardExamine completed actions, returns, cancellations, feedback, or other relevant measures.
Experiment evidenceHow reliable is the difference?Review the comparison period, sample size, uncertainty, and factors that may affect interpretation.
Review conclusionWhat the evidence supportsDetermine whether to expand, refine, continue testing, or stop the evaluated capability.
Decision performance · Treatment vs. Control
Production · 10% controlIllustrative dashboard
Decision acceptance · incremental
+11.4%vs control
p < 0.01
Specicon group3.82%
Control group3.43%
Decisions served2.84M30 days
Time to decision−38%vs control
Return rate−1.8 ptsvs control
Decision confidence
Strong fit54%Moderate fit31%Low confidence, held back15%
Review conclusionExpand

Define success before the build.