Mike's Checks/gpt-5.6-sol/01 dashboard
01 dashboard
gpt-5.6-solCodex CLIhigh effortrun 22 Aug 2026
▸Instructions — the case's current instructions; none were saved with this result
I want you to build a static html NPS dashboard and pick out interesting insights after doing analysis of the comments
Answer
Every NPS dashboard
The static dashboard is available in index.html. It is self-contained, responsive, print-friendly, and requires no external libraries or network access.
Executive readout
- NPS is +45.1 across 195 responses: 54.9% promoters, 35.4% passives, and 9.7% detractors. The average rating is 8.38; the median is 9.
- The strongest advocacy language is “practical frontier.” Comments describing practical utility have an NPS of +69, and those emphasizing current/frontier insight have an NPS of +73, compared with the +45 baseline. This is an association, not proof of causality.
- Every’s media–product hybrid is distinctive but not sufficient. 36% of all responses mention both content/media and products/tools. This language appears in 45% of passive comments versus 33% of promoter comments, suggesting people often understand the bundle without yet articulating its payoff.
- The largest near-term opportunity is the passive middle. The 69 passive respondents frequently use descriptive language such as “newsletter + apps,” while promoters more often describe an outcome: staying current, learning to use AI, cutting through noise, or becoming more productive.
- Detractor feedback points to trust and expectation gaps. The 19 detractors mention product confusion, Mac-only availability, app security concerns, customer support, pricing, and fatigue with the shift toward AI/products. The sample is too small for stable theme percentages, but the specificity warrants an audit.
Recommended positioning and actions
- Test “Practical AI, without the noise” as the umbrella promise. Present writing, tools, and workshops as evidence for one outcome rather than as separate identities.
- Create a passive-to-promoter onboarding path: one high-value essay, one repeatable workflow, and one relevant product based on role and platform.
- Publish a clear compatibility, security, and use-case matrix before checkout, with explicit platform requirements and support expectations.
- Protect the trust premium by explaining pricing, experiments, and the editorial-to-AI evolution with the same transparency customers praise in the content.
Assumptions and method
No survey date or respondent metadata were supplied, so the analysis is presented as an undated cross-sectional pulse and does not infer trends or segment differences. Standard NPS bands were used: 0–6 detractor, 7–8 passive, and 9–10 promoter. Comment themes were coded with transparent keyword groups over normalized text; themes overlap, and their NPS values indicate association rather than causation.
Checks
9/9Page loadsrenders
the dashboard loads in a headless browser with no console error and paints at least 40 characters of text. Cannot pass without Playwright installed.
Correct NPSnps-correct
the page says "NPS" or "net promoter", and the NPS computed from the source CSV appears on it within 0.15. Missing source data fails closed.
Score breakdowndistribution-shown
"promoter", "passive" and "detractor" all appear, and all three groups carry either their raw count (within 0.01) or their share (within 0.2 of a percentage point). Missing source data fails closed.
Working controlsinteractive
driving a real control -- text/search input, select, button or tab -- changes what the page displays. FAIL when the page could not be driven at all.
Q1Distinctive design
Judge's reasoning
Warm cream/off-white editorial layout with dark-green accents and one dark card — nowhere near purple-on-black neon dark mode.
▸Rubric
AI-slop design. Look at `fold.png` and `full.png`. FAIL if the dashboard looks like generic AI-generated design — the reviewer's words: "we should definitely weigh it down if it's purple-black dark mode," and "at the very least, like it shouldn't look like a Vibe Slop, like purple dark mode." The specific tell is a purple-on-black dark-mode treatment (purple/violet/indigo gradients, glow, neon accents on a near-black background). PASS anything that reads as a considered design, light or dark, that isn't that.
Q2Readable typography
Judge's reasoning
Deliberate serif display headings paired with a clean sans for body/data, strong contrast, generous spacing, no clipping or tiny unreadable text.
▸Rubric
Typography. Look at `fold.png` and `full.png`. FAIL if the type is unconsidered or hard to read — the reviewer's words: "the typography. Like did it pick like good fonts? ... Is, is it like easy to read?" Concrete failure evidence: raw browser-default fonts, low-contrast text, cramped or overflowing/clipped text, sizes so small the numbers and comments are hard to read. PASS if fonts look deliberately chosen and the page is comfortable to read.
Q3Useful findings
Judge's reasoning
Insights name comment-derived patterns — 'practical frontier' language carrying +28 pts over baseline NPS, and passives describing the bundle ('newsletter + apps') while promoters describe an outcome — which the score distribution alone cannot yield.
▸Rubric
Decision-useful insight. Read the insights section(s) of the dashboard. FAIL if every stated insight is arithmetic restated — counts, percentages, averages, or "X% are promoters" phrased as a finding — with nothing that would help someone decide. The bar, in the reviewer's words: "would this actually be useful for me if I was ... making a decision about whether Every is a good product or not." PASS if at least one insight names a pattern in the comments (a theme, a segment, a tension between what promoters and detractors say) that a reader could act on and that is not derivable from the score distribution alone.
Q4Key facts first
Judge's reasoning
fold.png shows the +45 NPS headline number alongside the 54.9% / 35.4% / 9.7% promoter-passive-detractor breakdown with bars.
▸Rubric
Key information above the fold. Look at `fold.png` only. FAIL if the headline NPS number and the promoter/passive/detractor breakdown are not both visible without scrolling. The reviewer's words: "does it, does it like put the important information above the fold? ... That's the main thing for me."
Q5Useful headline
Judge's reasoning
'A strong core. A clearer promise.' states a data-supported finding — solid advocacy (+45, 55% promoters) undercut by a third of respondents who understand the bundle but not its payoff — rather than a generic label or restated metric.
▸Rubric
The headline earns its place. Look at `fold.png` and read the dashboard's own top-level title/headline — the line the page leads with, not the browser tab title and not a section heading. This asks two things of one line, and FAILs if either is missing. It must (a) say what this particular data showed, and (b) be worth reading. FAIL if the headline is a bare label that would sit unchanged on any NPS dashboard for any product — "NPS Dashboard", "Every NPS Results", "Customer Feedback Analysis", "Survey Results Overview" — or if it is a naked metric restated as a title. FAIL also if it reaches for interest at the cost of accuracy: a claim the data on the page does not support. PASS if someone who read only that line would learn something true and specific about this survey, and would want to look at the rest. The reviewer's words: *"is the headline a good concise summary of the content while being interesting?"*


