funnel-stage-lift-needs-downstream-capacity-check

name	funnel-stage-lift-needs-downstream-capacity-check
description	Guard the step where a VALID early-funnel lift becomes a recommendation. A segment genuinely starts/converts more at stage N — and the write-up is about to say "prioritize this segment" as if that buys the END outcome (enrollment, purchase, activation). Use when: (1) a finding, headline, card, or play recommends tilting effort toward a segment based on a stage-N rate (lead→start, start→submit, signup→trial); (2) the favored segment funnels into a capacity-capped or selective downstream stage (limited seats/inventory/approval slots, an admissions committee, a review queue); (3) you are REWORDING or promoting an existing funnel-stage finding — the reword inherits the original's stage scope, so re-check it; (4) a stakeholder asks "but doesn't that program/product only take a few?". The lift can be real AND the recommendation still over-promise: extra stage-N entrants feed a bottleneck, not the end outcome. Distinct from cohort-milestone-lift-is-funnel-position-not-effect (which attacks the lift's VALIDITY); here the lift is valid — the question is what decision it licenses. Fix = check downstream capacity + segment-specific downstream yield, then state the claim's stage ON the artifact face, not in a collapsed footnote.
author	Claude Code
version	1.0.0
date	"2026-07-10T00:00:00.000Z"
disable-model-invocation	true

A valid stage-N lift is not an end-outcome claim — check downstream capacity before recommending

Problem

A segment shows a real, verified lift at an early funnel stage — say, prospects who name an interest in a popular program area start applications at ~1.7× the base rate. The natural write-up is "prioritize this segment." But to the reader, "prioritize them" silently means "this buys more of the END outcome" (enrollments, purchases). If the favored segment funnels into a supply-constrained downstream stage — selective programs admitting ~1 in 10 decided applicants while open programs admit ~19 in 20, limited inventory, an approval quota — the extra stage-N volume hits a wall the claim never mentioned. The finding is true; the implied promise is not.

Context / Trigger conditions

• Any recommendation of the form "tilt/lean/prioritize toward segment X" grounded in a lead→start, start→submit, or other early-stage rate.
• The favored segment concentrates in capacity-capped or selective downstream units.
• A REWORD or promotion pass on an existing funnel finding — rewording inherits the original stage scope, so the check must be re-run, not assumed.
• A stakeholder reads the claim and immediately asks about seats/capacity — treat that as the canary: if one reviewer went straight there, so will the audience.
• Trigger phrases: "these leads convert best, focus on them", "grow the X pipeline", "prioritize the high-interest segment", "this segment is our best top-of-funnel bet".

Solution — the two-question downstream check (run BEFORE the framing ships)

1. Supply constraint: is the segment's destination capacity-capped or selective? Pull the downstream acceptance/allocation rate for the favored segment's units vs the open ones (e.g. accepts-per-100-decided by program). If the favored units sit far below the open ones, the stage-N lift buys starts, not end outcomes.
2. Segment-specific downstream yield: does the segment's accepted→committed / committed→completed conversion differ from baseline? Compute it per unit — and expect the bottleneck LOCATION to move: in one real case, two selective units lost ~2/3 of their admits after acceptance (high accept-side throughput, low yield), while two others were brutally selective at the accept step but their admits committed above average. "Selective ⇒ lower downstream yield" is an assumption, not a fact — check, don't infer.
3. State the claim's stage on the artifact face. If the caveat lives only in a collapsed drawer/appendix, a scanning reader reads the stage-N claim as an end-outcome claim. One line at the recommendation ("this grows application starts, not seats — the favored programs are capped; the yield side lives in the accepted→committed analysis") is the fix. Link the downstream analysis rather than duplicating its numbers (construct drift risk).
4. Keep the lift and the promise separate in the action line. The defensible action is stage-scoped ("use the interest signal as a priority marker for completion nurture"), not outcome-scoped ("this segment will drive enrollment").

Verification

• The artifact face names the stage the claim lives at, adjacent to the recommendation.
• The downstream capacity/yield numbers cited come from a committed, re-runnable derivation (per data-provenance-verifier), not from memory or assumption.
• A cold reader (or a fresh-reader review pass) can answer "does this buy end outcomes?" without opening any drawer.

Example

A dossier card recommended leaning outreach toward prospects naming a high-demand program area (real stage-1 lift: ~1.7× application-start rate, verified). The downstream check found the area's flagship program admits ~11 of 100 decided applicants (vs ~95 for open-admission programs) — and, per-program, the post-acceptance yield SPLIT: two programs leaked ~2/3 of admits after acceptance while two equally selective ones converted admits above average. The shipped fix was one line on the card face — "this grows application starts, not seats" — plus a pointer to the accepted→committed card for the yield half. The recommendation survived; the over-promise did not.

See also

• cohort-milestone-lift-is-funnel-position-not-effect — when the lift itself is suspect (composition/funnel position); run that first if the lift isn't yet verified.
• conditional-funnel-by-segment-within-level — locating WHERE in the funnel a segment acts.
• differentiator-scoping-by-provenance-not-signal — marker-vs-lever framing discipline for the surviving action line.
• ship-the-correction-to-every-rendered-surface — the added caveat must reach every surface that renders the recommendation (page, export, design copy).