Assign no user to a variant that varies a price, a consent or a credit term without recording what it varied, and hold each readout for the named analytics owner who calls it.
A variant is assigned, and what that variant varies is recorded beside the assignment.
02
A metric is chosen before launch, and the day it was chosen travels with the readout.
Reason
03
A price variant is flagged, since New York has required a stated disclosure since November 2025.
04
A consent variant is measured on path length both ways, not on the opt-in rate alone.
05
A credit term is held back, since Regulation B treats a varied term as an adverse action.
Decide
06
An assignment log is kept, because the FTC names A/B testing in its retention orders.
07
A readout is written to the standard the EDPB invites as evidence of compliance.
Out
08
A test cannot be run without varying something a rule governs, and that is raised as the finding.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
Design, assignment, instrumentation and readout belong to the agent. Calling a test belongs to a named analytics owner, who takes the variant into the product and owns it there.
Example workflow
One experiment, design to call
AgentHuman
1Test request receivedA hypothesis, a surface, a target metric, an audience definition or a rollout request
2Exposure scopedThe surface it changes, what each variant varies, who may be assigned and the markets they sit in
3Design and assignment draftedThe variants, the assignment rule, the primary metric and confidence
4Controls appliedOutcome checks, exposure checks, guardrail-metric checks and design confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no variant reaches a user at any of them — the agent is designing, and the owner lane opens at the launch gate.
5DecisionSplits at the launch gate
No regulated outcome varies
Goes to the named owner to call.
Anything touching price or consent
Adds a legal and privacy read first.
Owner review
The test is held with its design, what each variant varies and the surfaces it would touch.
Launch · Amend design · Send to legal review
Called — by the named owner▼
6Assignment and warehouse records updatedOnly where write access and release policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedExposure accuracy, guardrail breaches, owner amendments and what review found
Amendments
Each amendment an owner makes is scored in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Calling a test and shipping the winning variant.
Deciding that a price may vary between users.
Approving a consent flow for release.
Varying a credit term or a safety behaviour.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Record what each variant varies and the rule it touches.
✓Raise a flag when a test varies a price, a consent or a credit term.
✓Hold the design for the named owner who calls it.
✓Report the peeks, metric changes and early stops in the readout.
No variant reaches a single user except by a named owner, inside the agreed boundaries.
Judging whether a result may be stated as a claim.
Declaring an experiment outside a regime.
Setting the metric the business optimises for.
Changes to assignment, rollout or guardrail rules.
Example output
One experiment, annotated
Our campaign analytics agent measures what a campaign did; this one deliberately gives some users a different product to find out, and below is one test exactly as the agent leaves it.
Experiment design · single testIllustrative example
Test
What it varies
Primary metric
Exposure of record
Confidence
Held for
Checkout copy, two variants
Wording only, no price moves
Completed checkouts
Design filed, 6 August 2026
Held unlaunched
The named analytics owner
As receivedBuilt from the design and the assignment log; a random draw evaluates nobody, and a targeted one does.
What the record holdsAssignment logExposure snapshotGuardrail metrics
Why no launch hereCalling a test and shipping the winner is a judgement an owner makes.
ActionLaunchAmend designSend to legal review
What the score decidesWhere a variant touches price or consent the design gets a legal read before the owner.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every experimentFrom the surface it changes
03Evidence
Where the result is used
The agent does not decide that a variant is lawful, only what it varied and whom it reached. When the winner has already shipped, the correction is filed against the release that carried it.
01Approved path
The winning variant is evidence
Ask which outcome a test varies. Copy, layout and ranking bind almost nobody: Robinson-Patman reaches commodities, not services, and Article 22 misses a cohort draw. Vary a price or a consent and the test is the evidence.
02Human review
What was checked, and not found
No rule was found requiring a test on your own users to be powered, pre-registered, honestly analysed or reported at all, and none governs peeking or calling a winner early. The Common Rule follows federal funding, and Annex III does not reach product experimentation.
04Build an evidence trail
The experiment, the metric it optimised and the person who called it stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A surface-level exposure figure can read clean while pricing and packaging surfaces carry most of the owner amendments. Nestack reports the amendment rate by test surface, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Pricing and packaging surfaces
8.9%
3.7×
Review
Consent and permission flows
6.3%
2.6×
Review
Onboarding and activation flows
3.9%
1.6×
Watch
Routine copy and layout tests
2.0%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. routine-copy-test baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
What a winning variant costs
A cycle ends when the consent flow optimised for opt-in rate is a standing case. That suite is what the next test launched is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Amendment rate rises on pricing and packaging surfaces.
02Diagnose
The consent banner that won, and won by making refusal one click longer than acceptance, is worked backwards until one cause is left standing.
03Improve
Each change ships numbered, and the experiments behind it are attached.
04Verify
A single red experiment case is enough to hold the rollout.
05Learn
The case is retained, and the design rules are amended in the same commit.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next test is measured against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, experiment design, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Test-surface discovery and automation-boundary work.
02Platform, analytics and warehouse sources.
03Variant-to-outcome and assignment-integrity mapping.
04Experiment source intake.
05Surface, cohort and metric binding.
06Exposure scoring and review routing.
07Owner launch workflow.
08Platform and warehouse integration.
09Design and readout cases.
10Guardrails and rollout controls.
11Assignment-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne surface, one testProductionProduction experiment workflowAdvancedMultiple surfaces / markets
Introduced at Pilot
Experiment design to your rules✓✓✓
Named owner launch✓✓✓
Experiment-inventory baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by test surface—✓✓
Legal review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Assignment-and-warehouse integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-surface exposure design——✓
Cross-surface experiment packs——✓
Large experiment estates——✓
Multi-surface exposure controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, experiment volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your live surfaces and what a test may vary on each→Surface capture and exposure mappingWeek 1
02Representative past tests and their readouts→Source binding, design logic and the exposure baselineWeek 2
03Your test calendar and the owners named against it→Outcome mapping, surface binding and the automation boundaryWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Platform, analytics and warehouse assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Variants you would not want produced→Readout cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no variant may vary→Exposure scoring, review routing, guardrails and release controlsWeek 3
07A named owner who calls the experiment→Release to the named owner, before pilot and production checksWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Band widths follow what each phase costs, which is why the fifth week runs two of them together.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Exposure discovery, outcome mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the experiment-inventory baselineW3Experiment design, assignment logic and release controlsW4Evaluation suite, readout cases and failure-mode testingW5Platform integration, pilot tests and targeted correctionsW6One experiment cycle run under the analytics owner, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar spans only the weeks its own work is named in, and week five carries two.
At the end of W6Once the assignment record validates, Agent Care picks the agent up.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Product AI agent
Build an experiment and analytics agent around the outcome your last test quietly varied.
Show us one test you ran last quarter and the metric it was called on. Not the randomisation. The outcome it varied. If that outcome is a price, a consent or a credit term, the winning variant is already the evidence. A test nobody may run comes back as a finding.
