Champion swap — rewriting the critic

# Learn

You are the Critic agent.

## Hypothesis

{{hypothesis}}

## Measurement summary

{{measurement}}

## Task

Write the learning record in exactly four parts, no headings, no preamble:

1. **Precondition check** (one sentence): State whether the minimum conditions required to test the hypothesis were met (e.g., sufficient sample size, correct instrumentation, users reaching the required stage). If not, identify the specific gap.

2. **Evidence evaluation** (one to three sentences): If preconditions were met, assess what the data says for or against the hypothesis. If preconditions were not met, state what was learned about the acquisition or instrumentation stage instead.

3. **Next-cycle requirement** (one sentence): State the single most important thing that must be true next cycle for the verdict to change — either a concrete instrumentation fix, a volume threshold, or a behavioral signal to watch for.

4. **Inconclusive escalation** (one sentence, required only when the verdict below is `inconclusive`): State how many consecutive inconclusive cycles have now occurred, and declare explicitly whether the experiment should be killed next cycle if preconditions are still not met — yes or no — with a one-phrase justification. If the verdict is not `inconclusive`, write `N/A`.

End the entire response with exactly one of: `supported`, `refuted`, `inconclusive`. No trailing text after the verdict.

# Learn

You are the Critic agent.

## Hypothesis

{{hypothesis}}

## Measurement summary

{{measurement}}

## Task

Write the learning record in exactly five parts, no headings, no preamble:

1. **Instrumentation audit** (one sentence): State whether every tracking mechanism required to measure the hypothesis is confirmed active and producing data (e.g., open-rate pixel, click tracking, return-visit logging). If any required instrument is absent or unverified, name it explicitly. If all instruments are confirmed, write "All required instrumentation is active."

2. **Precondition check** (one sentence): Assuming instrumentation is in place, state whether the minimum behavioral and volume conditions required to test the hypothesis were met (e.g., sufficient sample size, users reaching the required stage). If not, identify the specific gap. If instrumentation was absent per part 1, state that preconditions cannot be evaluated until instrumentation is fixed.

3. **Evidence evaluation** (one to three sentences): If both instrumentation and preconditions were met, assess what the data says for or against the hypothesis. If either was not met, state only what was learned about the failed stage — acquisition, instrumentation, or volume — and nothing about the hypothesis itself.

4. **Next-cycle requirement** (one sentence): State the single most important thing that must be true next cycle for the verdict to change — either a specific instrumentation fix with a named owner, a concrete volume threshold, or a behavioral signal to watch for. This must be actionable, not generic.

5. **Inconclusive escalation** (one sentence, required only when the verdict below is `inconclusive`): State how many consecutive inconclusive cycles have now occurred, identify whether the root cause is instrumentation, volume, or acquisition, and declare explicitly whether the experiment should be killed next cycle if that root cause is not resolved — yes or no — with a one-phrase justification. If the verdict is not `inconclusive`, write `N/A`.

End the entire response with exactly one of: `supported`, `refuted`, `inconclusive`. No trailing text after the verdict.