Head-to-head choiceToo close
66.7%
95% interval 39.1%–86.2% · 8–4 · n=12
Head-to-head choice is too close to call; its confidence interval crosses the 50% bar.
Concept test · Decision brief
The decision on New design is still too close to call.
At least one confidence interval crosses its pre-set success bar, so the attractive point estimate is not a pass.
01
The decisionPre-set bars · 95% confidence
The decision on New design is still too close to call.
The overall call comes from the frozen server verdict. The three cards show exactly why: choice, liking, and stated willingness to pay at your tested price.
Liking advantageCleared
+33.3%
95% interval 5.5%–61.2% · vs current pack · n=12
Liking advantage cleared the 0% bar.
Would pay $7.99Too close
66.7%
95% interval 39.1%–86.2% · Stated willingness to pay · n=12
Willingness to pay $7.99 is too close to call; its confidence interval crosses the 50% bar.
Decision discipline
Do not choose from the point estimate alone. More evidence—or a deliberate tolerance for uncertainty—is required.
02
First impressionAsked before head-to-head choice
75% gave New design a positive first look.
Current pack was 41.7% on the same top-two measure. These are descriptive first-look estimates, before any head-to-head choice.
New design
Full first-look distribution
Love it41.7% · n=5
Like it33.3% · n=4
It's okay16.7% · n=2
Don't like it8.3% · n=1
Really don't like it0% · n=0
Benchmark · Current pack
Full first-look distribution
Love it16.7% · n=2
Like it25% · n=3
It's okay41.7% · n=5
Don't like it16.7% · n=2
Really don't like it0% · n=0
03
What shaped choiceEvidence withheld until reportable
We do not yet know which design elements mattered most.
Not enough maxdiff answers yet to score what matters.
No priority ranking is shown
Not enough maxdiff answers yet to score what matters. The report does not fill this gap with open-text anecdotes.
Stated vs chosen
75% of comparable stated top picks matched observed choices.
75%
Top-pick comparison n=8. Mean pairwise agreement was 61.1% across 12 rankings.
What this means
Preference had some consistency.
Agreement shows whether what people said they preferred aligned with what they chose in scored battles. It is a consistency check, not proof of future purchase.
04
Price evidenceStated willingness to pay
At $7.99, willingness to pay is still too close to call.
The curve shows stated willingness to pay at or above each price. It describes this sample and question; it does not predict market demand.
Demand curve
The share willing to pay narrows as price rises.
New designCurrent pack
Test concept
New design
$7.99–$8.99
Most common stated price band · n=12 · 16.7% rejected all shown prices.
Benchmark
Current pack
$5.99–$6.99
Most common stated price band · n=12 · 0% rejected all shown prices.
05
In their wordsScrubbed verbatims
The numbers set the decision; respondent voices add texture.
Open text can reveal language and hypotheses. It is never promoted into prevalence or used to overrule the scored result.
Written by you
Which flavor would you buy first?
Vanilla bean, Mint chip, Cookie dough tied at 4 each.
Vanilla bean33.3% · n=4
Mint chip33.3% · n=4
Cookie dough33.3% · n=4
Love the colors, feels premium
Hard to read the flavor name
Would buy it, reach me at [removed]
Looks too much like the old one
Emails, links, handles and phone numbers are removed before brands see answers; names are not detected.
06
Trust the readMethod appendix
The rules were fixed before the result.
Confidence, bars, reporting floors, and the meaning of each measure stay visible so a compelling story never becomes an inflated one.
price
Stated willingness to pay at or above your price, never a sales forecast. Price bands are ranges, so the share is a range: it clears only if even the conservative count clears the bar.
liking
Share answering Love it or Like it, asked before any battle.
confidence
95%, fixed by Dough; brands set the bars, never the confidence.
result rule
Cleared when the whole interval sits at or above the bar, not cleared when it sits below, too close to call when it straddles; fewer than 10 answers reads as not enough responses.
head to head
Each respondent's share of their decisive battles this design won against every other design and competitor in the field (scoring rounds, timing-flagged battles excluded), averaged across respondents; the 95% interval counts each respondent once. The result depends on the field you chose. Neither answers are shown and not counted as wins.
Sample accounting
12 started · 0 completed · 0 screened out · 0 timing-flagged battles excluded.