Category: Generative AI

Prompt Engineering for Amplitude Global Agent That Holds Up

You ask Amplitude Global Agent why activation fell. It returns a plausible explanation, but you still can’t tell which events it examined, whether the comparison was valid, or what your product team should do next.

The fix is to treat the prompt as an analysis specification. Define the decision, provide the relevant analytics context, constrain unsupported conclusions, and make the agent show its work. You will get an answer that is easier to verify and more useful in a product review.

Start with the decision, not a broad request for insights

Requests such as “analyze activation” leave several decisions unresolved. The agent must guess what activation means, which users belong in the analysis, which period matters, and what kind of answer you expect. Even a polished response may answer the wrong question.

Before writing the prompt, complete this sentence: “After reading the answer, we need to decide whether to…” Your ending might be “change the onboarding sequence,” “investigate a recent release,” or “prioritize one segment for discovery.” That decision gives the analysis a destination.

Then assign a role that matches the work. “You are a product analyst investigating activation performance” is more useful than “You are a helpful assistant.” Add the audience as well. An executive needs the size and business relevance of a change; a product trio also needs the affected steps, segments, and follow-up questions.

A strong opening contains three elements:

Role: the analytical perspective the agent should take.
Decision: what the team will choose or investigate after reading the result.
Success criteria: what the answer must establish before it is useful.

For example: “You are a product analyst helping the onboarding team decide whether to redesign a weak activation step. Identify the largest meaningful drop-off, show which defined segment is most affected, and separate measured findings from possible explanations.”

Give the agent a compact analytics contract

The most reliable prompt names the data the agent may use. Include the relevant event names, property names, segment definitions, filters, and timeframe. If activation has an internal definition, write it out rather than relying on the agent to infer it.

This is a retrieval-first approach: put authoritative definitions, dashboard context, and prior query logic into the request before asking for interpretation. Concrete grounding reduces room for invented assumptions and makes repeated analyses easier to compare. A structured prompt can also specify the role, business objective, allowed data, and output fields.

Prompt element	What to provide	What it prevents
Metric definition	The exact event sequence or outcome that counts	A different interpretation of activation or retention
Population	Included users or accounts and explicit exclusions	Comparisons across unlike populations
Segments	Named properties and the values to compare	Arbitrary segmentation
Timeframe	The analysis period and comparison period	Hidden or inconsistent date choices
Evidence boundary	The events, properties, definitions, and dashboards allowed	Unsupported claims presented as measured facts
Output contract	Required sections, fields, ordering, and length	A long narrative that cannot be reviewed quickly

Do not dump every available definition into the context. Include only what the question requires. More context is useful when it resolves ambiguity; irrelevant context competes for attention and makes the prompt harder for a teammate to audit.

Use a reusable prompt that exposes uncertainty

You can adapt the following structure for activation, retention, anomaly investigation, or another behavioral analysis:

Role and audience: “Act as a product analyst. Write for the product manager and analytics lead responsible for [area].”
Decision: “Help us decide whether to [decision].”
Question: “Determine [specific analytical question].”
Definitions: “For this analysis, [metric] means [explicit event or outcome definition].”
Data context: “Use these events: [names]. Use these properties: [names]. Compare these segments: [definitions]. Analyze [timeframe] against [comparison period]. Apply [filters and exclusions].”
Constraints: “Use only the supplied Amplitude analytics events, properties, and definitions. Do not treat an unmeasured explanation as a finding.”
Output: “Return the metric result, segment comparison, timeframe, evidence, interpretation, confidence or limitation, and recommended next check.”
Fallback: “If the available data cannot answer the question, state what is missing and provide the smallest follow-up query needed.”

The fallback matters. Without it, the agent has an incentive to complete the requested narrative even when the evidence is incomplete. A useful failure is specific: it identifies a missing event, undefined property, absent comparison, or ambiguous metric. Your team can fix that. A confident guess is harder to detect.

Ask for measured findings, interpretations, and recommendations as separate fields. A measured drop-off is evidence. A claim that users were confused is an interpretation unless the supplied data establishes it. A recommendation to inspect session replay or conduct customer interviews is a next step, not proof of the cause. Keeping those layers separate makes the result safer to use in prioritization.

Turn prompt quality into a small product evaluation

Do not judge a prompt by whether one response sounds intelligent. Save the prompt version, input context, and output. Then test it against a question whose answer your team already knows. This gives you a reference point for accuracy before you use the template on an ambiguous problem.

Score each version on three dimensions:

Accuracy: Did the answer use the supplied definitions, filters, segments, and timeframe correctly?
Clarity: Can a reviewer distinguish evidence, interpretation, limitations, and next steps?
Actionability: Does the result support the stated decision or name the next query required?

Change one meaningful element at a time. You might compare a broad objective with a decision-specific objective, a narrative response with a fixed output contract, or an unrestricted answer with an explicit evidence boundary. Run the same test question through each variant. Otherwise, you will not know which change improved the result.

Commit to two or three prompt iterations for one critical workflow. Review the failures, tighten the ambiguous instruction, and keep the better-performing version. Within a sprint, that process can produce a reusable template for a recurring analysis such as activation, retention, or anomaly detection.

Store winning prompts with their required inputs and known limitations. A template without those notes becomes cargo cult: teammates copy the wording but omit the definitions that made it work. Treat the prompt, context requirements, evaluation question, and scoring criteria as one asset.

Key takeaways

State the product decision before requesting analysis.
Define the metric, population, segments, filters, and timeframe explicitly.
Restrict conclusions to the analytics evidence you supplied.
Separate measured findings from interpretations and recommended actions.
Require a specific fallback when the data is insufficient.
Version and score prompts for accuracy, clarity, and actionability.

Start with the recurring Amplitude question that currently creates the most debate. Write its decision, definitions, evidence boundary, and output contract. Run two or three scored iterations, then give the winning template to another product manager. If they can obtain a defensible answer without you translating the prompt, it is ready to become part of the team’s operating system.

References

Amplitude — Prompt Like a Pro: Three Battle-Tested Tips for Amplitude Global Agent Success

May 26, 2026

Beyond Accuracy: How I Evaluate AI Customer Service Agents That Delight and Scale
When teams evaluate AI Agent options for customer service, I often see the rigor aimed at the wrong subset of criteria. After leading and observing dozens of proof of concept (POC) efforts with our customers and prospects, I understand why performance—accuracy scores, resolution rates, and benchmark tests on curated datasets—soaks up most of the attention. But those indicators alone won’t guarantee success once you leave the sandbox and face real customers.

If your POC only proves that the AI “works,” you’re missing the bigger picture. Here’s what else I look for to make the best long-term decision.

How does it handle your real-world setup?

Performance is table stakes, but it has to reflect the messiness of an actual support environment. The best-performing Agents don’t just get answers right—they exhibit resilient, human-like behavior under pressure. I watch how the Agent behaves when it doesn’t know an answer: does it recover or spiral? Does it stay on track through multi-step requests, and how gracefully does it hand off to human agents? If your knowledge base depends on a retrieval-first pipeline, test cross-source retrieval and grounding—not just single-document lookups.

When I build evaluation scenarios, I put the Agent through its paces with a broad, realistic mix:
- Multi-turn queries that require the Agent to carry context across a conversation, not just answer isolated questions.
- Vague or fragmented inputs, like typos, grammatical errors, and incomplete questions, because that’s how customers actually write.
- Edge cases and sensitive scenarios, like billing disputes, frustrated customers, and questions that sit at the boundary of what the Agent is trained on.
- Different phrasings of the same question. An Agent that handles one version well but fails on a rephrasing has a knowledge problem, not a performance problem.
- Queries that require pulling from multiple knowledge sources. Real issues are rarely answered by a single help article, and an Agent that can only handle single-source questions will hit a ceiling fast.
- Multilingual conversations, if your customer base requires it. Performance can vary significantly across languages and it’s better to discover that in testing than in production.
This preparation is worth the effort. Any Agent can look impressive in a demo; what matters is how it holds up as part of your team, serving your customers in production.

What does it feel like to interact with the Agent?

Two AI Agents can post the same quantitative scores—resolution rates, containment rate, and more—and still deliver very different customer experiences. Resolution rate tells me whether the Agent finishes conversations; it says nothing about how customers felt during them. I deliberately assess the experience, not just the outcome, because conversation design shapes trust and brand perception.

Here’s what I look for to ensure the AI Agent is enjoyable to interact with:
- Is the tone natural and on-brand, or does it feel robotic and generic?
- Does it build trust early in the conversation, or does it create friction that makes customers want to immediately request a human?
- When it doesn’t know the answer, does it handle that gracefully?
- When it hands off to a human, is that transition seamless, or does the customer feel abandoned?
As George Dilthey at Clay put it when evaluating their AI setup: “Keep what’s important to your business up front and center. For us, that was transparency and control over the customer experience.”

That framing is exactly right. The Agent represents your brand in every conversation. Customers don’t experience “accuracy,” they experience conversations. An Agent that’s technically accurate but tonally off-brand will erode customer trust over time.

I make the experience dimension explicit in my POCs. I have people on my team—and when possible, a small cohort of real customers—interact with the Agent under realistic conditions. Then I ask how it felt, not just whether it worked.

Can you keep improving it after launch?

This is the dimension most teams don’t evaluate at all, and it’s possibly the most important one. Choosing an Agent that works today and ensures you can continuously improve the customer experience over time requires more than a functional demo. You’re buying a system that must get better every week, not just during the first sprint.

The feedback loop

Can your team easily review conversations and identify where the Agent is underperforming? Can you pinpoint specific gaps (missing knowledge, incorrect tone, poor handoff decisions) and act on them quickly? The faster the loop between “something isn’t working” and “we’ve fixed it,” the more value compounds over time. In practice, that means instrumenting conversations, leveraging Agent Analytics, tagging misroutes and tone slips, and running targeted evals on known failure modes.

The speed of iteration

When you identify a gap, how quickly can you address it? This is partly a question of tooling (how easy is it to update knowledge, refine guidance, adjust behavior?) and partly a question of team capability. The teams getting the most out of AI are the ones that have changed how they operate and made continuous improvement a part of their everyday work. They’ve committed to going all-in for the long term, not just the first few weeks when launching their AI Agent. We treat this as eval-driven development: automate evaluations that mirror real tickets, tighten prompt engineering and retrieval settings, and ship small fixes daily.

The vendor partnership

The vendor behind the Agent matters just as much as the solution itself. You’re choosing a partner for transformation that will help you evolve how your business delivers customer experience. Ask:
- How does customer feedback influence the product roadmap, and can they show you examples?
- If you have feedback on limitations or weaknesses, do they engage transparently or get defensive?
- What kind of support will you get post-launch?
- Are they shaping where AI customer experience is going, or reacting to what others are building?
How a vendor responds to those questions tells you more about the long-term relationship than any benchmark result.

What a good POC proves

If your POC only proves “the AI works,” you haven’t done enough. A strong proof of concept tests performance in realistic conditions, evaluates the experience from the customer’s perspective, and validates the system that will support continuous improvement after launch. Done well, it sets you up for long-term operational success and builds organizational AI readiness—not just a flashy demo.

Inspired by this post on The Intercom Blog.
May 22, 2026
Old-School Selling Beats PLG in the AI Era: My GTM Playbook for 8‑Day Enterprise Deals

Old-school, in-person selling is having a renaissance in the AI era, and I’ve seen why up close. From leading product and go-to-market teams through hypergrowth, I keep returning to one lesson: enterprise buyers still reward the teams who show up, orchestrate change management, and own outcomes end-to-end. The tech has changed; the human dynamics haven’t.
Has the sales playbook changed in the AI era? The tools are faster and the surface area is bigger, but the core motion remains the same: “showing up” beats letting the marketplace decide. That’s why in-person enterprise rollouts still beat product-led motions, especially when the stakes include security, governance, and cross-functional adoption. You win by reducing organizational risk, not by assuming free trials will do the heavy lifting.
Great enterprise sellers collapse silos. They sell to engineers and executives in one motion, pairing deeply technical validation with crisp business narratives. In my org, that means every high-velocity pilot has a dual thread: hands-on, eval-driven proof for the builders and a value architecture for the budget owners. When those motions run in parallel, time-to-value plummets and procurement friction fades.
Selling to AI-native buyers who grew up on ChatGPT changes tempo, not fundamentals. The same seller, different tempo: 8 weeks vs. 8 business days. These buyers evaluate fast, expect clear ROI, and push for automation-first workflows. How AI-native buyers handle build vs. buy decisions comes down to build for differentiation and buy for acceleration. If you make procurement feel like product—frictionless, instrumented, and transparent—you’ll meet their bar.
Process matters, but humanity wins. Building a robust sales process that still leaves room for unscripted moments is where trust is formed. I’ll never forget the story of the rep who taught a champion’s son guitar over Zoom—an unscripted moment that cemented a partnership. The lesson: raise the floor without capping the ceiling. Equip every rep with repeatable plays, then celebrate the creative instincts that make champions out of customers.
In early GTM, why the three highest-leverage early sales hires aren’t sellers at all resonates with my experience. I prioritize a solutions engineer who can de-risk integration, a forward-deployed operator who can run the first rollout like a product manager, and a customer success lead who designs adoption paths from day zero. Together, they compress the value journey from proof to production.
Compensation design shapes your talent market. The case for outsized commission accelerators for star sellers — and the kind of person they attract is real: magnets for competitors who close complex, multi-threaded deals and thrive with ownership. But beware: why too much process narrows the kind of seller you attract. Over-script it and you filter out the very people who can navigate ambiguity with customers.
Under the hood, instrumenting the funnel from stage zero to close keeps the system honest. I track intent signals before pipeline, conversion by persona and use case, proof milestones, and time-to-value in production. The three pillars of GTM excellence for me are repeatable discovery, referenceable outcomes, and relentless enablement. And inside the leadership team, building peers who are 80% aligned, not 100% preserves healthy tension while keeping execution fast.
AI is expanding the definition of enablement—whether AI is changing what good enablement looks like isn’t a theoretical question anymore. I see world-class teams arming reps with retrieval-first knowledge bases, sandbox environments, and objection libraries that evolve weekly. Meanwhile, selling against direct and implied competitors at once is the norm: your battlecard must cover “do nothing,” internal tools, adjacent categories, and new AI entrants—while you still remember why in-person enterprise rollouts still beat product-led motions for durable adoption.
Planning horizons tighten in AI markets. How far out should a GTM leader be planning? I work a dual cadence: a rolling 6-week operating plan that’s ruthlessly tactical and a 2–3 quarter roadmap for coverage, enablement, and category storytelling. What a normal week looks like in hypergrowth blends customer time, pipeline triage, onboarding and enablement, deal engineering, and process tuning—always with one or two high-conviction bets that could bend the curve.
References: Ahead: https://www.ahead.com; Amazon: https://www.amazon.com; Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com; Attio: https://www.attio.com; Augment Code: https://www.augmentcode.com/; Cognition: https://cognition.ai; Cursor: https://cursor.com; Dani McCabe: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielle-mccabe/; Datadog: https://www.datadoghq.com; GitHub Copilot: https://github.com/features/copilot; HubSpot: https://www.hubspot.com; Jeremy Powers: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremypowers/; JPMorgan: https://www.jpmorgan.com; Matt McClernan: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mattmcclernan/; MongoDB: https://www.mongodb.com; Nicole Rettinger: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-rettinger-23b20465/; Notion: https://www.notion.com; OpenAI: https://openai.com; Parag Agrawal: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paragagr/; Parallel: https://parallel.ai; Snowflake: https://www.snowflake.com; University of Chicago: https://www.uchicago.edu; Windsurf: https://windsurf.com
If you’re scaling an AI product today, pair a disciplined sales-led growth engine with the best of product-led growth: fast paths to proof, hands-on validation for builders, executive-level value mapping, and human moments that turn customers into advocates. That’s how you compress an eight-week cycle into five business days—and keep the expansion flywheel spinning.

May 21, 2026
Supercharge Core Web Vitals with Amplitude’s Global Agent: Faster Rankings, Happier Users

I measure product health by a simple equation: speed plus clarity equals trust. That’s why I prioritize Core Web Vitals and search performance together—because the fastest path to better UX and higher rankings is a closed loop between measurement, diagnosis, and action. Standardizing on Amplitude’s Global Agent with Amplitude AI Agents let my teams compress that loop from weeks to hours, and in many cases, to minutes.

Learn how to track your web vitals and page rankings faster with Amplitude AI Agents and improve your site’s user experience and SEO rankings. That goal sounds ambitious, but with the right instrumentation and analytics workflow, it becomes a repeatable operating rhythm rather than a one-off project.

Here’s what changed for us with Amplitude’s Global Agent: a single, consistent way to capture performance signals across pages and journeys, unified context for every session, and a lightweight footprint that doesn’t get in the way of speed. By centralizing measurement, we eliminated blind spots and gave product, growth, and engineering one shared truth for Core Web Vitals and behavioral analytics.

My practical playbook is straightforward: 1) Establish a performance baseline for Core Web Vitals on key templates and critical user paths. 2) Segment results by device, location, acquisition channel, and content type to surface where users actually feel the friction. 3) Connect those vitals to downstream behaviors—scroll depth, engagement, and conversion—so we prioritize fixes that move business outcomes, not just lab scores. 4) Use feature flags and A/B testing to ship improvements safely and quantify uplift. 5) Close the loop with Agent Analytics to keep learnings visible and actionable.

Operationally, we rely on anomaly detection to flag regressions early, CI/CD guardrails to prevent performance slips at deploy time, and observability plus session replay to accelerate root-cause analysis. This combination reduces mean time to resolution, protects page experience during fast iteration cycles, and helps us avoid trading UX for speed—or vice versa.

The strategic benefit is compounding: better Core Web Vitals improve user perception and increase engagement, which strengthens SEO signals and, ultimately, page rankings. With a unified analytics platform in place, we can spotlight the few improvements that create outsized gains, then scale those patterns across the site with confidence.

If your roadmap includes faster pages, stronger rankings, and happier users, align your teams around this simple loop: measure precisely, diagnose quickly, experiment safely, and learn continuously. Amplitude’s Global Agent and Amplitude AI Agents give you the instrumentation and insight to make that loop your competitive advantage.

Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.

May 20, 2026
Level Up: May 26 Claude Code Show & Tell + Final Product Discovery Fundamentals Cohort

I’m excited to share two opportunities this season to uplevel your craft, connect with peers, and leave with practical, repeatable techniques you can apply immediately to your product work.

We will be doing another round of Claude Code: Show and Tell on May 26th at 9am PDT. These community-driven sessions are hands-on and fast-paced—we swap proven workflows, compare prompts, and pressure-test approaches together. You’ll see how product teams are operationalizing AI workflows in real contexts and walk away with ideas you can adapt for your own roadmap and experimentation pipeline. Invites will go out to Supporting Members and CDH Members tomorrow. If you'd like to join us, keep an eye on your inbox for the invite.

I love these Show & Tell sessions because they translate tacit knowledge into clear, reusable playbooks. Whether you’re refining evaluation loops for LLMs, streamlining discovery synthesis, or standardizing prompts for consistency, the shared rigor and camaraderie make it a high-signal hour for any product leader invested in AI workflows.

I also want to share that I'll be teaching our June 4th – July 9th cohort of Product Discovery Fundamentals. This is the last time I'll be teaching this cohort in its current format. If you've been thinking of enrolling in this program, and want to take it with me, this is your last chance. Register here.

Across this cohort, we’ll practice continuous discovery habits—framing opportunities, tightening assumptions, running lean experiments, and aligning product trios on evidence-backed decisions. If you want a rigorous, repeatable system for turning customer insight into confident prioritization and compelling product strategy, I’d be thrilled to have you in the room.

Inspired by this post on Product Talk.

May 18, 2026
Unlocking AI Agents: The Real Barrier Is Readiness—Not Capability—Here’s How to Scale

There’s a question that runs underneath every AI Agent evaluation: what can it do?

Two years ago, that was the right question to ask because Agents were limited and capability was a genuine constraint. The gap between what organizations needed and what the technology could deliver was wide. I felt that gap acutely in early pilots—plenty of ambition, not enough dependable execution.

That gap has since narrowed considerably, and yet most organizations are running their Agents well below what’s technically possible. I see teams lean on answering and routing, but stop short of looking things up, taking actions, or resolving complex, multi-step problems—especially where data, process variance, or risk come into play.

The standard explanation is that AI isn’t good enough yet—models must improve, or vendors must ship more features. But after studying organizations across industries actively expanding their AI automation, I’ve found that this explanation holds up less often than people assume. The blockers tend to be elsewhere.

The teams I’ve observed weren’t primarily constrained by what their AI could do; they were constrained by what their organization was structured to let it do. In other words, the ceiling wasn’t the Agent’s capability—it was organizational readiness, governance, and risk tolerance.

“Readiness” for AI breaks into five distinct types, and most organizations have some but not all of them. Below is how I assess them with product, operations, and engineering leaders.

Content readiness is whether you can explain your product and policies clearly and consistently. Most companies can. In practice, that means up-to-date knowledge bases, unified policy language, and clear versions that Agents can cite and apply.

Scope readiness is whether you’ve defined the edges: when should AI engage, and when should it step aside? Edge cases multiply, intent varies by customer segment, sensitive topics surface mid-conversation, but most teams can work through this with effort. Clear guardrails reduce ambiguity and shrink risk.

Procedural readiness is where things start to get harder. This is about whether you can articulate your processes clearly enough for something other than a human with years of tacit knowledge to follow. The happy path is rarely the problem. It’s the failure paths, decision branches, variations that have never been written down because they’ve always lived in someone’s head.

Data readiness is the first real cliff. Can you reliably identify the right user, account, or object at the moment a decision needs to be made? Is the data trustworthy in real time? Are the APIs stable, accessible, and actually connected? For most organizations, the honest answer is “partially, but we’re not always sure when it breaks.”

Execution readiness is the highest bar. Not just technically (can the Agent make the change?) but organizationally. Who owns it when the wrong refund gets processed? Who detects it? Who recovers? Does someone with authority actually accept the risk?

Most companies have the first two, some have the third, fewer have the fourth and fifth. When I map this with teams, we often discover that their Agent’s ceiling is really a reflection of operational maturity and data plumbing, not model quality.

We studied companies across six industries – energy, healthcare, ecommerce, gaming, financial services, property management – all trying to expand what their Agents could do. The pattern was consistent: teams set out to automate real actions—looking up account status, processing changes, handling transactions. In most cases, the AI could technically do it, but at a certain point (somewhere between guiding a user through a process and looking something up on their behalf) they hit a wall.

One team tried to automate application changes but couldn’t reliably identify which application to modify across their internal systems. Another explored billing automation but couldn’t access live account data due to regulatory constraints. A third needed to verify status across third-party vendor systems their Agent couldn’t reliably reach. I’ve seen similar constraints surface around CRM integration, data governance, and vendor SLAs—none of which are model issues.

In most cases, the team redesigned around what their infrastructure could support. They moved toward guiding—walking users through processes step by step, rather than executing changes on their behalf. It worked, it resolved conversations and delivered real value, just differently than anyone planned. In customer support, this often looks like consultative flows that shorten time-to-resolution even without direct writes.

Most Agent evaluations are built around capability. Can it handle complex queries? Does it support multiple channels? Can it integrate with our systems? These are reasonable things to evaluate for, but they produce a capability score, and that doesn’t tell you whether your organization can actually use what you’re buying.

The teams that got to deeper automation, the ones executing actions early, didn’t have “better AI,” they had more standardized operations. Actions that were already well-defined, consistently applied, and exposed through stable systems with clear rules. Automation wasn’t inventing new behavior, it was triggering actions that were already tightly controlled elsewhere.

Readiness enables capability, not the other way around. Which reframes the evaluation question from “can the AI do this?” to “are we actually ready for it to?”

Something that gets lost in most conversations about AI readiness is that organizations are often further along than they assume, just not for the kind of work they were planning for. A team that set out to automate refunds but can reliably guide users through complex troubleshooting has genuine capability deployed. They’re operating at the level their readiness supports, which is a starting point, not a deficit.

The more useful frame isn’t “are we ready?” – it’s “what are we ready for, and what specifically stands between here and the next level?” The gaps tend to be concrete: a missing API, data that lives in three systems that don’t agree, a process that’s never been documented, or an ownership question nobody has answered. These are solvable problems. They just require a different kind of investment than buying a more capable Agent.

What nobody has worked through seriously yet is how organizations actually build readiness. Does it develop naturally through using AI at shallower levels first? Or is it mostly a function of prior decisions, like system architecture choices made years ago, operational maturity that accumulated over time, engineering investments that have nothing to do with AI? When readiness does increase, what actually changes? Does the support team develop it? Does engineering grant it? Does it require executive sponsorship and investment in infrastructure with no obvious AI label on it?

In my experience, progress comes from a joint effort: product to define scope and guardrails, operations to codify procedures and edge cases, engineering to harden APIs and observability, and leadership to underwrite risk with clear ownership. When those pieces align, agentic AI moves from guided assistance to safe, auditable execution.

Until there are clearer answers, the pattern is likely to continue. Companies will buy capable Agents, plan ambitious rollouts, and find that the harder work is building the organizational infrastructure. The Agents can do the work. The question is what it takes to let them.

Inspired by this post on The Intercom Blog.

May 18, 2026
No More Accidental Agents: How We Engineered Global Agent’s Helpful, Curious Personality

Most teams ship AI agent personalities by accident—emergent quirks, brittle prompts, and uneven behavior. We refused to let that happen. From day one, we treated personality as a first-class product surface, one that should be designed, instrumented, and iterated with the same rigor as any core capability.

Learn how we designed Global Agent’s personality and fine-tuned its inquisitiveness and helpfulness using Agent Analytics.

In my role leading product at HighLevel, Inc., I framed our approach around agentic AI and conversation design: personality is not “flavor text”; it is the control system for how an agent interprets context, asks questions, and decides when to act. Our product strategy prioritized clarity, empathy, and consistency—so the agent would be curious enough to resolve ambiguity without becoming interrogatory, and helpful enough to move work forward without overstepping.

We made that intent measurable. Using behavioral analytics, we defined operational signals such as clarification-question rate, resolution-path efficiency, and escalation quality. We combined eval-driven development with targeted A/B testing to compare prompt patterns and tool strategies, ensuring each change had a clear hypothesis and measurable outcome.

To calibrate inquisitiveness, we mapped decision points where the agent should ask follow-ups versus proceed autonomously. Prompt engineering codified those thresholds, while a retrieval-first pipeline reduced unnecessary questions by improving context completeness up front. When the agent did ask, we constrained tone and cadence to keep queries concise, respectful, and progress-oriented.

To enhance helpfulness, we prioritized precise action-taking and unambiguous guidance. Context window management preserved relevant facts without diluting intent, and guardrails aligned with AI risk management principles ensured the agent stayed within policy, privacy, and compliance boundaries. The result was an assistant that resolved more tasks end-to-end, with fewer stalls and clearer handoffs when human help was warranted.

Agent Analytics became our nervous system. We instrumented every dialog turn to attribute outcomes to design choices, then used driver trees to connect micro-behaviors to macro results like time-to-resolution and customer satisfaction. This closed-loop view let us ship confidently, knowing which levers improved helpfulness, which sharpened curiosity, and which merely added noise.

Process mattered as much as tooling. Product trios ran continuous discovery with customers to surface edge cases—ambiguous intents, multi-intent turns, and sensitive scenarios—while our engineering partners operationalized experiments with clean rollback paths. We favored small, testable changes over sweeping rewrites, building momentum and trust with each iteration.

The payoff is a personality that feels consistent across use cases: curious when clarity is missing, decisive when action is obvious, and transparent when limits are reached. Users experience fewer dead ends, faster resolutions, and a brand voice that shows up the same way every time—because it was defined, measured, and improved on purpose.

If you’re building agentic AI, don’t leave personality to chance. Treat it like a product: set clear outcomes, instrument deeply with Agent Analytics, and iterate with eval-driven development and A/B testing. That’s how curiosity becomes a feature, helpfulness becomes a habit, and your agent becomes reliably, intentionally excellent.

Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.

May 13, 2026
I Pointed a “Ralph Wiggum” AI Loop at My Product for a Week—The Data That Stopped Chaos

I spent a week pointing a "Ralph Wiggum loop" at my product to see how far an agentic AI could take pragmatic, everyday improvements without human micromanagement. It was equal parts exhilarating and nerve-wracking. The short version: the loop moved fast and broke assumptions, but Amplitude analytics kept it from going off the rails—and turned chaos into controlled acceleration.

By "Ralph Wiggum loop," I mean a deliberately naive, endlessly curious cycle: try something small, ship it behind a flag, watch the data, then try again. It is the product equivalent of a fearless intern who experiments constantly. That energy is invaluable for discovery, but it absolutely demands strong guardrails and a clear definition of success.

Before I started, I framed the outcomes I cared about: user activation within the first session, reduction in time-to-value, and early retention indicators. I set baselines and a minimum detectable effect (MDE) for A/B testing so the loop could distinguish noise from signal. I also documented a driver tree of behaviors we wanted to influence and ensured every event was cleanly instrumented in Amplitude analytics to support reliable behavioral analytics.

The guardrails mattered most. I put every change behind feature flags with instant rollback. I defined "off the rails" conditions upfront, including regression thresholds for activation and retention analysis, and enabled anomaly detection to surface unexpected spikes or drops. Session replay was ready to diagnose confusion fast, and I kept a daily evaluation cadence so the loop never ran unattended for long.

Day by day, the loop proposed micro-experiments: onboarding copy variants, tooltip timing, in-app guide sequencing, and subtle changes to progressive disclosure. Each iteration shipped behind a flag to a small cohort. I watched leading indicators in real time, then zoomed out to cohort views to guard against short-term gains that might erode longer-term value. When something looked promising, we expanded exposure methodically; when something looked risky, we paused immediately.

We had a pivotal moment where the loop suggested a bolder call-to-action that spiked activation. On the surface, it looked like a win. Amplitude cohorts told a fuller story: downstream engagement softened, and anomaly detection flagged a pattern that hinted at premature conversion rather than genuine intent. A quick rollback through feature flags saved the week—and reminded me why eval-driven development should be the default for agentic AI workflows.

The most surprising part was how quickly the loop unlocked small compounding gains once the measurement scaffolding was in place. With a unified analytics platform and crisp guardrails, the system became a safe sandbox where the AI could explore aggressively while we stayed anchored to outcomes. The combination of behavioral analytics, A/B testing discipline, and daily human review turned raw speed into durable learning.

My takeaways are direct. Agentic AI can accelerate discovery, but only if you define stop conditions and wire strict feedback loops into your stack. Measurement is product strategy here—without it, you get noisy activity instead of progress. Invest in instrumentation first, treat feature flags as non-negotiable, and let anomaly detection and session replay be your early warning system. Most of all, tie every experiment to activation, engagement, or retention, not vanity metrics.

If you’re considering your own week with a "Ralph Wiggum loop," start painfully small, constrain the blast radius, and insist on decision-quality data. Do that, and you’ll turn a chaotic agent into a compounding engine for product discovery—one that moves fast, learns faster, and stays on track.

Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.

May 13, 2026
From Vision to Execution: Building Agentic, Data‑Driven Products with Real‑World Rigor

When I consider where product development is headed, one statement captures the mandate perfectly: "Eric Carlson is a Principal AI Engineer helping to shape and build Amplitude's next generation vision of of agentic and data driven product development." That vision resonates deeply with how I lead teams—anchoring strategy in behavioral analytics while enabling agentic AI to act on insights with speed, safety, and measurable impact.

Translating that vision into execution starts with clarity of outcomes. I frame driver trees that connect customer value to leading indicators—activation, engagement depth, and retention—then instrument product telemetry with Amplitude analytics and behavioral analytics to surface the moments that matter. From there, we operationalize learning with A/B testing and feature flags, ensuring each hypothesis gets a fair, observable run and that we can safely ramp what works.

Agentic AI changes the operating model. Instead of static dashboards, we design autonomous workflows that observe signals, reason over context, and take action—grounded in a retrieval-first pipeline and governed by eval-driven development. For product managers, this demands fluency with LLMs for product managers and practical prompt engineering, plus rigorous AI Strategy around data governance, privacy-by-design, and risk scoring so agents remain trustworthy under real-world conditions.

Cross-functional cadence is everything. I partner closely with Principal AI Engineers and product trios to blend continuous discovery with execution: rapid user interviews to reveal intent, opportunity solution trees to prioritize, and outcomes vs output OKRs to align incentives. The result is a system where insights are unified, decisions are explainable, and agents improve through tight feedback loops across analytics, experimentation, and production telemetry.

If you’re building toward an agentic, data-driven future, invest in a unified analytics platform, shorten the path from signal to action, and measure learning velocity as carefully as feature delivery. With the right foundations, agentic AI becomes more than a feature—it becomes a force multiplier for product strategy, customer value, and sustainable growth.

Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.

May 13, 2026
From Prototype to Production: How I Built Reliable AI-Generated Opportunity Solution Trees

I just wrapped an all-out engineering sprint. That still sounds odd coming from me, because while I’ve written code on and off for years, I don’t self-identify as an engineer. I’m a product manager who used to be a designer. It’s been a long time since I wrote code for a living.

But AI has expanded what’s just now possible—for our products, and for us. It’s pushed me to do more than I imagined. In that spirit, I want to share a recent engineering story. It includes technical details, and a year ago I couldn’t have done any of it. I learned it with the help of AI, and my aim is to show what’s now within reach.

I’ve been building two services with a partner at Vistaly: AI-generated interview snapshots and AI-generated opportunity solution trees. We put out a call for alpha partners, received over 100 applicants, and selected eight design partners to start.

A clear, color‑coded map from desired outcome to opportunities, solutions, and assumption tests—showing how to structure discovery work and prompt AI to generate, compare, and validate product ideas.

Each team uploaded three customer interviews. I identified the key moments and opportunities and then generated an opportunity solution tree from those snapshots. I provide the AI services; Vistaly is building the UI and workflows around them.

Early feedback was strong. Teams immediately asked to upload more interviews—exactly the kind of demand signal you hope to see—so we got to work making that possible.

Go behind the scenes as AI turns raw feedback into a clear Opportunity Solution Tree. Linked cards reveal user needs—onboarding, support offload, and bot-readiness signals—so product teams can spot priorities and next steps at a glance.

Updating an opportunity solution tree with new interview content is far harder than generating a new tree from scratch. I initially underestimated the complexity. Our goal wasn’t to produce a tree and declare it truth. We wanted teams to engage, correct, and collaborate with the AI—scaffolding cross-interview synthesis instead of doing it for them.

To support that, we needed a way to communicate precisely how a tree would change after new interviews were added. We took inspiration from git diff and set out to build the equivalent for opportunity solution trees—step-by-step change sets that explain each proposed modification.

A clear visual of AI‑generated opportunity solution trees: outcomes feed opportunities that branch into sub‑opportunities, while evidence is preserved. The structure ensures updates stay traceable and never cause data loss.

That decision was right, but the lift was larger than I expected. It wasn’t enough to generate an updated tree; I also had to provide a clear, ordered walkthrough of what changed and why.

I often see the same pattern with AI: it’s easy to get to an impressive prototype, but much harder to reach a production-grade product. That was exactly my experience here. My service actually comprised two sub-services: generating a new tree from scratch and updating an existing tree with new interviews. The first worked well in alpha; the second had to be built before anyone could add a fourth interview.

Explore how an outcome expands into an Opportunity Solution Tree: Opportunities A and B stem from the goal, with C and D nested under B, while a concise change set tracks every node added along the way.

On the surface, these services look similar. In reality, updates must preserve existing structure unless new evidence requires a change. You have to account for compound operations—merges, splits, deletes—while guaranteeing no data loss. Every node has source opportunities (supporting evidence from interviews) and children (tree sub-opportunities), and neither can be dropped.

In classic AI fashion, I got a reasonable version working in a few days and shipped it to our design partners. One team quickly hit our beta limits and asked to convert to a paid subscription so they could keep going. They showed a willingness to pay, converted, and started uploading aggressively.

Watch an Opportunity Solution Tree evolve: the original parent A with x, y, z branches is split into A and B, shifting evidence while preserving links—mirroring how AI refines scope and structure in discovery.

At the 14th, 15th, and 16th uploads, the cracks appeared. We saw odd behavior in some trees. The Vistaly team noticed that the change sets—the step-by-step instructions emitted by my service—didn’t always reconstruct the final tree my service also emitted. We needed those steps to match exactly, so teams could review and accept, modify, or reject each change with confidence.

They flagged the issue the day I was flying to New Orleans for Jazz Fest. In hindsight, I’m glad I didn’t grasp the scope of what awaited me. I had roughly 80% of the work still to do to make tree updates rock solid. At least I got to enjoy the music first.

From fragments to focus: this diagram shows how Opportunities B and C are merged into a single Opportunity Solution Tree, removing duplicates and unifying context so AI can rank and explore five related opportunities with clarity.

Back home, I started diagnosing. My service was a pipeline: several LLM-driven steps followed by deterministic code to compare trees and produce change sets. As I dug in, I realized that approach was flawed. Tree diffs, unlike linear document diffs, are ambiguous.

In a document, if I add a sentence, the diff shows an addition. If I delete a paragraph and rewrite it, the diff shows a removal and an addition. Simple. But trees are different. Suppose I split opportunity A into A and B, and later merge B with C. The split can disappear from the final diff.

Peek inside our process: a simple opportunity solution tree maps an outcome to prioritized opportunities A and C with downstream options x-z and t-v. A clear snapshot of how AI organizes product discovery.

When the model splits an opportunity, it must distribute A’s source opportunities and children between A and B. For instance, if A has source opportunities 1, 2, 3 and children x, y, z, after the split A might keep 1, 2, and x, while B takes 3, y, and z.

Now suppose the model merges B into C. If C originally had source opportunities 4 and 5 and children t, u, v, then after the merge C now has source opportunities 3, 4, 5 and children t, u, v, y, z. When you compare the original and final trees, it looks like A somehow donated some evidence and children directly to C. The split and merge that explain why are invisible to a naive diff.

See how an AI-generated Opportunity Solution Tree unfolds: one Outcome flows to Opportunities A and C, then into options x–v. Clean colors and arrows reveal the hierarchy from goal to opportunities at a glance.

That was the core insight: we didn’t just need to show what changed—we needed to show why it changed. I had to reconstruct each move step-by-step. That meant getting the model to show its work, which opened a new can of worms.

I refactored my prompts so the model produced both the final output and the exact change set it used to get there. The action language was explicit: add, delete, reframe, merge, split, and so on. Crucially, I asked the model to describe its moves in user-meaningful terms—“split A into A and B, then merge B into C”—not as opaque reassignments of sources and children.

Watch an opportunity solution tree take shape: start with the outcome, add opportunities A and B, then extend B to C and D. The paired change set makes every edit transparent—ideal for AI-assisted product discovery.

For each LLM step, the model now emitted its recommendation and the corresponding change set. This helped, but it wasn’t perfect. After extensive testing and error analysis, two classes of errors emerged: (1) the model attempted an invalid move, and (2) the change set didn’t actually generate the recommendation.

Category 1 felt like designing a game while the model played it creatively. For example, what happens when the model tries to merge a parent with a child? If opportunity A has children B, C, and D and the model merges A with B, the merge is directional. If the instruction is “keep A, delete B,” that works—the parent absorbs the child. But if the instruction is “keep B, delete A,” then C and D become orphans. These puzzles were solvable and even fun.

Visual explainer from Product Talk on AI-generated Opportunity Solution Trees. It contrasts an allowed merge (B into A) with a not-allowed merge (A into B) that leaves child opportunities orphaned, guiding safe hierarchy edits.

Category 2 was harder. Despite prompt iterations, I could only push the discrepancy rate down to about 1 in 40 instances. With 10–20 LLM calls per run, that meant roughly half of all runs still failed. Not acceptable for production. I hit a wall. A paying customer was waiting, and more design partners were queued up.

Next, I tried to correct the model’s mistakes with deterministic code. I had promised that my change sets would generate the output tree, so I wrote verifiers: detect conflicts (e.g., delete a node, then try to use it later), guard against data loss, prevent orphaned nodes, and more. Detection was straightforward; correction was not. Fixing issues required guessing the model’s intent. If the sequence said “delete A, then merge A with B,” should I remove A entirely or salvage A’s sources and children by merging into B? There were dozens of such cases with no unambiguous answer.

A step-by-step loop shows how changes are validated: generate a change set, run a validation tool, review the result, then repeat on failure and exit on pass—mirroring iterative work behind AI-built Opportunity Solution Trees.

After 11 straight days of deep work—including weekends—I was exhausted. I dislike hustle culture; this isn’t how I design my life. But I was stuck, and then I had an insight.

On a walk with my husband (also an engineer), I realized I could have the LLM repair its own mistakes. My data contract with Vistaly requires that the change set must generate the output tree. I had already built robust validation code. I knew exactly when a change set failed—and why. No amount of prompt tuning alone was fixing it. So I turned the validator into a tool for the model and created a simple agentic loop.

The loop works like this: the model proposes a change set, calls the validation tool, and gets back a pass/fail plus specific feedback. If it fails, the model uses those instructions to repair the change set and calls the tool again. Iterate until success or a max number of turns.

I prototyped in Node.js with a single model call, a verifier pass, and a repair attempt. At first, the loop didn’t converge—it just accumulated compute. I experimented with how to communicate errors, how much context to include, and how to sequence feedback. Eventually, it clicked: the model began fixing its own mistakes and typically returned a valid change set in one or two repairs. It was, in practice, eval-driven development applied to LLM outputs.

I had already built an agent loop utility for another AI workflow, so I productionized quickly: model call, optional tool invocation, tool result returned to the model, repeat until the validator signals success or the loop times out. I integrated the new loop into the pipeline and shipped the revamped service to Vistaly on Monday at noon. They’re integrating now, and it will be in the hands of our design partners shortly. I’m relieved—and ready for a day off.

Reflecting on the last two weeks, a few things stand out. First, I shed limiting beliefs about being an engineer. To make this reliable, I had to solve legitimately hard problems, and that feels good.

Second, this was genuinely fun. Designing the action set and watching the model push those boundaries was like working through elegant puzzles. Models are incredibly creative, and harnessing that creativity with the right constraints is deeply satisfying.

Third, I learned when I can and can’t trust Claude to write code for me. Since Opus 4.6 came out, I gave Claude a much longer leash. After the past two weeks, Claude is back on a short leash. I found a lot of gaps in my implementation in areas where I simply trusted that Claude got it right, when in fact it didn’t. If you don’t have the right infrastructure—planning, testing, code review—this can be disastrous. I’ll be investing more here and sharing what I learn.

Finally, if this work had been spread over two months, it would have been thoroughly enjoyable. I’m discovering how much I like being an AI engineer. It feels like a new chapter where I can combine opportunity solution trees with modern AI engineering—and deliver real value to product teams doing continuous discovery.

I’m excited to share more of what we’re building with Vistaly and to onboard more design partners soon. If you’re interested, get on the waiting list. And if you’ve been hesitant to stretch beyond your current skill set, I hope this story nudges you to take the first small step toward what’s just now possible.

Inspired by this post on Product Talk.

May 13, 2026
Beyond the Product Builder Hype: How AI, org design, and joy shape PM success

I recently spent time with the debate behind the "product builder" trend—asking whether it’s the future of product management or just another wave of tech FOMO. The conversation featuring Teresa Torres and Petra Wille is a useful prompt, but what matters most is how we translate these ideas into healthy product practices inside our own organizations.

Here’s my take: the product builder movement is neither a mandate nor a fad—it’s a tool. The right question isn’t "should product managers code?" but whether leaning into building advances outcomes for our customers and our teams. In practice, that means letting interest and skill—not pressure—set the pace.

Petra captured it perfectly: "Just because I can do it — is it something I enjoy doing? And do I have enough experience to really get into the flow?" Those two tests—joy and depth—are underrated filters. I’ve seen PMs light up when prototyping or vibe coding a thin slice, and I’ve also seen well-meaning dabbling create hidden complexity that slows everyone down later.

Org design determines whether this works. It’s not about the tools—it’s about clarity of roles, healthy interfaces between product, design, and engineering, and explicit guardrails for where experiments stop and production begins. AI has raised the stakes: "AI can make unskilled work look polished. That’s a feature and a bug — executives see the shine, engineers inherit the mess." If you’ve ever watched a glossy demo turn into weeks of refactors, you know exactly what this looks like.

To avoid that trap, I deliberately separate the three layers where AI is changing product work: personal productivity, team process, and product strategy. Treating these as different stacks keeps expectations clean: a prompt that accelerates personal workflows isn’t the same as an AI-enhanced process that reshapes delivery, and neither automatically produces durable product advantage. Don’t conflate them.

Discovery remains stubbornly human. "Why discovery still requires talking to your customers (sorry)" is more than a friendly nudge. AI can broaden our search space and sharpen analysis, but it doesn’t replace qualitative conversations or the judgment that comes from pattern recognition across real customer contexts. Continuous discovery and disciplined customer interviews are still the most reliable compasses we have.

Where does "vibe coding" fit? It’s great for roughing out concepts, de-risking slices, and communicating intent when words or static mocks won’t cut it. Tools like Claude Code make this faster than ever, and familiar stacks like Ruby on Rails lower the bar for spinning up functional prototypes. But remember the design system trap: AI can make bad decisions look good on the surface. If you don’t control for architecture, accessibility, data contracts, and handoff quality, your team pays the integration tax later.

In well-set-up orgs, the output-oriented muscle memory gets rewired. When AI frees up time, strong teams reinvest it into better problem framing, sharper opportunity solution trees, and tighter product strategy—rather than simply chasing more output. That’s a leadership challenge, not a tooling problem, and it shows up quickly in how teams make trade-offs.

Here’s how I operationalize this with empowered product teams: we articulate clear boundaries for prototypes versus shippable code, define decision rights for when PMs or designers "build," and align on review gates that protect quality without stifling speed. We also make the three AI layers explicit in roadmapping and retros, so improvements to personal workflows don’t get mistaken for strategic advantage.

My distilled guidance echoes the episode’s throughline. The product builder trend isn’t a mandate — it’s a tool. Let enjoyment and skill guide who on your team leans into it. Organizational readiness determines whether AI empowers your team or creates chaos. Don’t conflate personal efficiency, process change, and product impact—they require different responses. Discovery fundamentals haven’t changed; AI helps you go deeper, not skip the work. And the real takeaway on product builders: not everyone has to build, but everyone can if they want to.

If you want to hear the full discussion that sparked these reflections, listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Then tell me: where will you apply builder energy in your team—and where will you deliberately say no?

Resources & Links: Follow Teresa Torres: https://ProductTalk.org. Follow Petra Wille: https://Petra-Wille.com. Mentioned in this episode: Claude Code, Vibe coding, Ruby on Rails.

One more quote I loved because it centers autonomy and craft: "It’s a tool in our toolbox. We can decide who on our team has fun with it, wants to do it, wants to contribute." That’s the mindset that sustains both momentum and morale.

Inspired by this post on Product Talk.

May 12, 2026
Outcome-Based Pricing That Delivers: Pay $10 Only for Qualified Leads with Fin for Sales

Our outcome-based pricing model hinges on one principle: you pay when Fin delivers value.

As Fin takes on new roles, that principle doesn’t change, but the definition of value does.

Fin for Sales qualifies leads, engages prospects, and routes high-intent buyers to your sales team. The value it creates isn’t a resolved query, but a pipeline of qualified opportunities. So we price accordingly: $10 per qualified lead. And you, the customer, define what “qualified” means, not Fin.

This is the first outcome-based pricing model for an AI Agent for sales. Here’s why I believe it’s the right approach and how I’ve seen it change the way teams think about SaaS pricing and ROI.

Over the years, I’ve learned that the fastest way to earn trust with sales and finance leaders is to align pricing with outcomes they actually report on. The core finding from our research was unambiguous: zero buyers preferred paying for activity. They wanted to pay for results.

That insight shaped how we priced Fin for its service role, $0.99 per resolution, where a resolution means the customer’s issue is fully solved without human intervention. More recently, we evolved that model to outcomes, reflecting the broader ways Fin delivers value across complex workflows. We believe pricing should be aligned with value delivery, and the vendor should carry risk when the product doesn’t perform. In sales, the best unit of value is pipeline.

Most sales teams today are overwhelmed by leads. Early in my career, I watched reps spend hours chasing form fills that looked promising but went nowhere. That experience cemented a lesson I still use: volume is vanity; qualification is sanity.

Ensuring the right opportunities promptly reach your sales team is what makes a difference. When a prospect visits your site, engages with Fin, answers qualifying questions, and is directed to a sales rep, Fin is identifying whether the opportunity is worth your team’s time and delivering value.

Charging per conversation would penalize businesses for every curious visitor who asks a question but isn’t a buyer. And charging per token, well, that’s always been a model that protects the vendor, not the customer.

We needed a metric that captures the actual value Fin creates in a sales context: qualified leads.

The purest version of outcome-based pricing for Fin’s sales role would be a percentage of closed revenue. Fin qualifies the lead, a rep closes the deal, and we take a cut. On paper, it looks elegant; in practice, I found it breaks down for two reasons that matter to operators.

First, attribution. Between the moment Fin qualifies a lead and the moment a deal closes, dozens of things can impact the final result. The quality of human-led demos can differ, products can have outages, prospects’ budgets can get cut. Tying Fin’s price to the final outcome holds it accountable for variables entirely outside its control.

Second, measurement. To track closed revenue, we’d need deep integration into every customer’s CRM, tracking each opportunity from qualification through to close. That’s a significant implementation burden that slows time to value, which is the opposite of what we want.

So we asked: what’s the most honest proxy for the value Fin delivers, where Fin is clearly the one creating it?

A qualified lead is that proxy. It represents the moment Fin has done its job. It has engaged the prospect, gathered the relevant information, evaluated them against your criteria, and determined they’re qualified. Everything up to that point is Fin’s work. Everything after it is the rep’s. At $10 per qualified lead, the pricing reflects this boundary.

There are two key components to how this pricing model works.

First, the customer defines success. With Fin’s sales role, the customer sets their own qualification criteria based on their business context. A company with high average contract values might set a lower bar because they can’t afford to miss anyone. A company where rep time is scarce and deal sizes are smaller might set a much higher bar, filtering aggressively to only surface the most promising prospects. The criteria flex to match the business.

Second, the economics are different by design. As a Customer Agent, Fin can switch between roles like sales and service. So if you’ve deployed Fin for Sales, it can still handle support queries like prospects asking a product question. Those queries are charged at $1 per resolution, consistent with our service pricing. Disqualifications, where Fin determines a prospect doesn’t meet the criteria, are also $1. The $10 price point for qualified leads reflects the higher value of pipeline creation compared to issue resolution.

The ROI speaks for itself. Early customers are reporting significant returns using Fin for Sales. One shared a perspective that mirrors what I hear in executive QBRs:

“I would say it’s at least 10 times the value. You’re now giving the business exactly what it needs as opposed to just activity. We say this expression in sales leadership all the time – ‘I don’t pay my sales team for activity. I pay them for results.’ I want my AI engine to be the same way.”

When you compare the cost of a qualified lead from Fin against the fully loaded cost of an SDR—salary, benefits, tooling, ramp time—the economics are compelling. For many businesses, particularly those that never had SDRs in the first place, Fin for Sales isn’t just replacing headcount, but creating an entirely new capability that wasn’t economically viable before.

This pricing model came from extensive customer research—qualitative interviews and quantitative studies—exploring how buyers want to pay for AI in a sales context. We tested multiple concepts: per-conversation, per-token, per-seat, revenue share, and per-qualified-lead. The research consistently pointed to outcome-aligned pricing as the preferred model, with the qualified lead emerging as the metric that best balances value alignment, measurability, and practical implementation.

Outcome-based pricing is still rare in AI, but we think that will change. For Sales Agents, we’re the first to do it. Transparency is part of the model. If you understand why we price the way we do, you can evaluate whether it works for your business.

Inspired by this post on The Intercom Blog.

May 8, 2026