Proof format 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 concise inline evidence or an optional evidence link support a better qualified response? The observation unit is one prospect. Define the population and owner before collecting records; do not substitute an available convenience dataset without documenting the change.

Work through the procedure

1. Use the same substantiated proof claim in both formats. Record destination availability and whether tracking is enabled.
2. Randomize format while holding claim, sender and offer fixed. Confirm mobile readability and destination access before release.
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.

A: one verified process fact inline; B: the same fact with an optional methodology link; no invented customer result
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 qualified replies and complaints. Link clicks are a secondary instrument reading and may include automated requests. 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.

One substantiated proof claim available in inline and linked formats.

Hold claim strength, sender and offer fixed; record tracking and link availability.

Analysis: Qualified replies and complaints; clicks are secondary and may be automated.

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

Changing the proof strength as well as its format creates a confound. Neither format guarantees inbox placement. 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