pricing-tribunal

name	pricing-tribunal
description	The capstone workflow for high-stakes pricing decisions. Four stages — Hypothesize, Test, Adjudicate, Audit — that make material pricing changes safe to ship at speed. Loaded by the main pricing skill when the operator faces a decision material to ARR (new tiers, value-metric switch, raise-the-base, outcome guarantee, kill a tier, change discount policy). Outputs a tribunal-defensible pricing plan + verdict matrix + 30/60/90 audit cadence.
user-invocable	false
allowed-tools	["Read","Write"]

Pricing Tribunal — sub-skill

The high-stakes pricing decision workflow. When the change is material to ARR (>5% revenue impact OR affects >20% of customers OR touches the value metric), route through the tribunal — not through "let's just try it and see."

Activation

The main pricing skill routes here when:

• The operator describes a change material to ARR
• pricing-audit or pricing-diagnostic recommends "tribunal"
• The operator explicitly asks "I'm thinking about [change]"
• The change touches: value metric, base price, top tier elimination, outcome guarantee structure, or discount policy

The four stages

Hypothesize  →  Test  →  Adjudicate  →  Audit
  (week 0)     (1-6)     (week 7)     (30/60/90)

Stage 1 — Hypothesize (week 0)

Name the pricing hypothesis SPECIFICALLY. Format:

If [the change], then [expected outcome with magnitude + direction], because [the mechanism]. Downside risk [where it concentrates + magnitude]. Test predicts [observable that would falsify].

Example:

If we shift from $299 flat to $0.05 per API call with a $99 minimum, then mid-market ACV +25% and free-tier conversion +15% in Q1, because the value metric finally tracks customer success and the $99 minimum eliminates the friction of the previous flat tier. Downside risk concentrated in low-volume customers (~5% of base, ~2% of ARR) who may churn at the new minimum. Test predicts new-logo ACV in the per-API cohort lifts ≥15% within 60 days while free-tier conversion holds or rises.

Hypothesis quality checklist:

• Names the change concretely (no "improve pricing")
• States expected magnitude + direction
• Cites the mechanism (which JMC principle applies)
• Names where downside risk concentrates
• States what observable would falsify

Stage 2 — Test (weeks 1-6)

Controlled tests WITHOUT public damage. Test options:

Test	When to use	Risk profile
Private beta	Net-new logos, hidden URL or invite-only	Lowest risk
Grandfather-clause	Existing customers stay on old pricing, only new logos see new price	Low risk
Sales-led pilot	Sales reps offer new price to 10-20 selected prospects	Low-medium
Geographic/segment cohort	One geo or PSP segment gets the new price	Medium
Ramp	10% of new sign-ups → 30% → 100% over 4-6 weeks	Medium-high
Live test on a single tier	Decoy or anchor change, target tier unchanged	Medium-high
Full cutover	NOT a test — only if hypothesis is high-confidence + reversible	Highest risk

Test design rules:

1. Run to statistical significance OR document the test as inconclusive. Never decide on vibes.
2. Predict the lift direction + magnitude UP FRONT. Post-hoc rationalization is forbidden.
3. Document every input change (price, copy, layout) — if you change two things you can't attribute the result.
4. Set a kill-switch threshold. "If close-rate drops below X in week 2, pull the test."

Stage 3 — Adjudicate (week 7)

The verdict matrix:

Question	Pass	Fail
Did the test reach the predicted direction?	Yes (sign matches)	No
Did the test reach the predicted magnitude (±20%)?	Yes	No
Were side effects within prediction?	Yes	No
Is the downside risk concentration matching predicted?	Yes	No
Does product + sales + finance sign off in writing?	Yes	No

Verdict outcomes:

• All Pass → ROLL OUT (with the documented rollout plan)
• Direction + Magnitude Pass, side effects Fail → ITERATE (refine, retest, re-tribunal)
• Direction Pass, Magnitude Fail (lift smaller than predicted) → ITERATE or ABANDON (depending on cost of switching back)
• Direction Fail → ABANDON + update the diagnostic framework (the test exposed a wrong assumption — capture it)

Stage 4 — Audit (30 / 60 / 90 days post-rollout)

At each interval, re-run the verdict matrix against actuals:

• Did the LIVE result match the test result?
• Are side effects emerging that the test didn't surface?
• Is the downside concentration as expected?

If actuals diverge from test predictions in 30-day audit, the divergence reason gets documented in the failed-test registry. The discipline is what compounds — not any single win.

Decision routing

When operator describes a change, classify risk tier:

Risk tier	Definition	Workflow
Routine	<2% ARR impact, <5% of customers affected, reversible in <30 days	Skip tribunal; route to pricing-pocket-waterfall or pricing-contrast-set
Material	2-10% ARR impact, 5-20% of customers, reversibility in 30-90 days	Full tribunal, 6-week test window minimum
Strategic	>10% ARR impact, >20% of customers, or value-metric change, or hard to reverse	Full tribunal + executive review + 8-12 week test window + grandfather-clause mandatory

Workflow

1. Classify the change

Ask the operator the 3 risk-tier questions. Route accordingly.

2. Hypothesize

Walk the operator through the hypothesis template. Refuse to proceed without all 5 fields populated.

3. Design the test

Pick a test from the table based on risk tier. Document:

• Test type
• Cohort size + selection method
• Duration
• Kill-switch threshold
• Sign-off owners

4. Output the tribunal plan

Pricing Tribunal Plan — {change name}
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

RISK TIER: {Routine / Material / Strategic}

HYPOTHESIS:
{full hypothesis with all 5 fields}

TEST DESIGN:
- Type: {private beta / grandfather / pilot / ramp / cohort}
- Cohort: {size + selection criteria}
- Duration: {N weeks}
- Kill-switch: {threshold + condition}
- Sign-offs: {product, sales, finance, exec}

ADJUDICATION DATE: {date}
30-DAY AUDIT: {date}
60-DAY AUDIT: {date}
90-DAY AUDIT: {date}

PREDICTED LIFT: {direction + magnitude}
FALSIFICATION CONDITION: {what would prove the hypothesis wrong}

5. Sign-off + calendar

Confirm with the operator:

• Calendar holds set for adjudication + 30/60/90 audits
• Sign-off requests sent to listed owners
• Kill-switch threshold tracked in monitoring

Self-check

• Risk tier classified correctly (don't tribunal routine changes; don't skip on strategic)
• Hypothesis has all 5 fields including falsification condition
• Test type matches risk tier
• Kill-switch + threshold documented
• All audit dates calendared
• Sign-off owners named

Reference

• ../../pricing/references/pricing-framework.md — the tribunal frame in context
• ../pricing-audit/SKILL.md — what feeds into the tribunal
• ../pricing-pocket-waterfall/SKILL.md — for routine discount-policy changes