Follow-up timing experiment: study protocol

Define the decision

This page is a proposed research protocol, not a completed study or a report of findings. The decision is: Does a specified delay policy change qualified replies over the same complete observation window? The observation unit is one prospect, with assignment held for the whole sequence. Define the population and owner before collecting records; do not substitute an available convenience dataset without documenting the change.

Work through the procedure

1. Specify delays, weekday policy, timezone, message text and an outcome window long enough for both schedules.
2. Randomize eligible contacts within comparable segments. Keep mailbox allocation balanced and stop both arms after replies or opt-outs.
3. Before collection, write the primary outcome, observation window, exclusion rules and stopping conditions. Preserve excluded observations with a reason rather than quietly removing them.
4. Pilot the procedure with fictional or owned test data, resolve ambiguous fields, and freeze a dated protocol version before the main run.

Worked example

The following is a synthetic example for this procedure, not a customer result or performance benchmark.

arm A: second message after three calendar days; arm B: after six; same text and final outcome cutoff
Suggested record fields: observation_id, condition, evidence_reference, outcome, exclusion_reason, reviewer, protocol_version
Status: illustrative record only; no study has been run for this page.

Read the result

Compare prospect-level qualified reply proportions after both cohorts mature. Earlier responses alone are not a final conversion advantage. Keep the numerator, denominator and missing evidence visible. If the available observations cannot answer the registered question, report that limitation rather than selecting a more favorable metric after collection.

Collect the evidence

Observation unit: prospect.

Eligible contacts, a reviewed sending policy and a frozen outcome definition.

Assign once within segment and mailbox strata; same text and outcome window, different delay.

Analysis: Qualified replies per assigned eligible prospect after both arms mature.

Download the JSON collection template under Source references. Set an owner, eligibility rules, outcome definition, observation window and sample justification before collecting records. Templates contain no participant data or results; keep original private records outside the public website.

Check before moving on

1. Name the person responsible for collection and review.
2. Check that the evidence can be inspected without exposing private messages or credentials.
3. Record deviations from the protocol and analyze their possible effect.
4. Retain a dated, redacted evidence worksheet with the final interpretation.

Limits and next action

Do not repeatedly peek and stop at a favorable difference. Predefine sample needs, safety stops and analysis. Publish results only after the evidence, method and limitations have been reviewed. This protocol provides no benchmark, expected lift or completed-study claim.

Source: Method or workflow reference