---
title: "Define Hypothesis: Workbench Blueprints"
description: "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: required-section enforcement hypothesis."
artifact: hypothesis
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.5.0"
skill_version: "2.0.0"
created: 2026-02-21
status: sample
thread: workbench
context: "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: required-section enforcement hypothesis"
---
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

Workbench is a Series B enterprise collaboration platform (~200 employees, ~500 enterprise customers [fictional]) building Blueprints, reusable document templates with required sections and role-based approval gates. After completing discovery interviews and the problem statement, Rachel V. (Technical PM) formulated a testable hypothesis that required-section enforcement at submission time would reduce the median time to first approved Blueprint. The hypothesis flows directly from the interview finding that 38% of documents reach approval with empty sections [fictional], inflating approval cycles with rejection-revision loops. Leo M. (Data Analyst) collaborated on the statistical design to ensure the closed-beta population could produce a meaningful result within the timeline constraints.

**Source Notes:**

- LinkedIn Engineering's blog post "Experiment Rigor at LinkedIn" (engineering.linkedin.com) outlines minimum detectable effect methodology for enterprise B2B tools with irregular usage patterns, which informed the MDE and duration calculations for this hypothesis's validation plan.
- Microsoft's Work Trend Index 2023 reported that knowledge workers spend 8.8 hours per week searching for or recreating documents, establishing the cost baseline that template enforcement aims to address.
- Atlassian Confluence's template documentation confirms that no section enforcement exists in the market-leading enterprise documentation tool, validating the structural gap this hypothesis targets.

---

## Prompt

```
define-hypothesis

Product: Workbench Blueprints (enterprise doc templates with required sections and approval gates)
Stage: Define phase, post-discovery interviews and problem statement

Hypothesis: Requiring all Blueprint sections to be completed before an author can submit for approval will reduce median time to first approved Blueprint.

Context:
- 38% of Blueprints in closed beta reach approval with ≥1 empty required section [fictional]
- Median time to first approval: 4.0 days [fictional]
- Most rejections are for missing content, not quality [fictional]
- Approvers (dept heads, compliance leads) are the bottleneck -- they reject and wait, or approve with risk
- Target: reduce median approval time to ≤1 day [fictional] (aspirational)
- MDE for experiment: 1.0 day reduction (to ≤3.0 days) [fictional]

Target users: Project leads and document authors at enterprise Workbench accounts
Validation: A/B test in closed beta (80 accounts, ~300 Blueprints/week [fictional])
Primary metric: median time-to-first-approval (days)
Guardrails: author abandonment, author NPS

Stakeholders: Sandra C. (Head of Product), Karen L. (Eng Lead), Leo M. (Data Analyst)
```

---

## Output

# Hypothesis: Required Blueprint Sections Reduce Time-to-Approval

## Hypothesis Statement

**We believe that** requiring all Blueprint sections marked as required by the template admin to be completed before an author can submit for approval

**for** project leads and document authors at enterprise Workbench accounts

**will** reduce the median time from Blueprint creation to first approval decision

**as measured by** median days from `blueprint_created` event to `approval_granted` event, compared between control (optional sections) and treatment (required sections enforced) over a 4-week A/B test

## Background & Rationale

### Problem Context

Enterprise teams use document templates to standardize project kickoffs, vendor onboarding, compliance reviews, and architecture decisions. Despite widespread template usage, no tool in the enterprise collaboration market enforces template completion before a document enters an approval workflow. In Workbench's closed beta (80 enterprise accounts [fictional]), 38% of Blueprints reach the approval stage with at least one empty required section [fictional], triggering rejection-revision-resubmission cycles that inflate median approval time to 4.0 days [fictional]. The rejection-revision pattern is particularly costly because each cycle consumes approver attention, a scarce resource that discovery interviews identified as the primary bottleneck in the documentation workflow.

The problem statement (November 2025) formalized this as a completeness problem, not a quality problem. Approvers are not rejecting documents because the content is bad; they are rejecting them because the content is missing. This means the approval workflow is absorbing a completeness-checking burden that could be handled upstream by the authoring tool. By shifting the completeness check to the submission gate, the hypothesis predicts that the approval workflow will process documents faster because approvers can focus on substantive evaluation rather than completeness screening.

### Supporting Evidence

- Discovery interviews (6 enterprise team leads, October 2025): 6 of 6 participants described documentation inconsistency as accepted and inevitable. 5 of 6 reported that approvers are the bottleneck, with most rejection-revision cycles caused by missing content rather than content quality [fictional].
- Closed-beta telemetry: 38% of submitted Blueprints have at least one empty required section at the time of submission [fictional]. The most common approver action on these Blueprints is rejection with a comment requesting missing content [fictional].
- Competitive analysis (February 2026): No doc-first competitor (Confluence, Notion, Coda) offers section enforcement. Monday.com has approval workflows but not document-level section validation.
- P1 (VP Ops, discovery interviews): "The actual approval decision takes 10 minutes. The other 3 days are the document sitting in someone's queue because it's not ready to approve." [fictional]

### Alternative Hypotheses Considered

1. **Advisory warnings at submission (non-blocking):** Show a warning when sections are empty but allow submission. Rejected because discovery interviews suggested authors under time pressure will dismiss warnings; enforcement must be structural, not advisory.
2. **Approver-side completeness check (flag at review):** Highlight empty sections to the approver but leave the submission flow unchanged. Rejected because this moves the completeness check downstream (where it already exists informally) rather than upstream.
3. **Template simplification (reduce section count):** Reduce the number of sections in templates so more documents are "complete" by default. Rejected because the problem is not template length; it is selective completion of sections the author perceives as irrelevant.

## Target User Segment

### Definition

Project leads, operations managers, and team leads at enterprise Workbench accounts who create documents from Blueprint templates and submit them for approval. These are the authors, the people who interact with the submission flow where enforcement would apply.

### Segment Size

Approximately 1,200 active authors across 80 closed-beta accounts [fictional]. At GA (500 accounts), the estimated author population is ~7,500 [fictional]. The closed-beta segment skews toward early adopters and governance-sensitive buyers, which may inflate the positive response to enforcement relative to the broader GA population.

### Current Behavior

Authors create Blueprints from templates and submit them for approval with varying levels of completeness. The median author completes 4 of 6 sections before submitting [fictional]. When a Blueprint is rejected, the median revision turnaround is 1.5 days [fictional] (author receives rejection, finds the missing information, updates the Blueprint, and resubmits). Authors rarely complete all sections on the first attempt not because the information is unavailable, but because they perceive some sections as optional or low-priority for their specific use case.

## Success Metrics

### Primary Metric

| Metric | Current Baseline | Target | Minimum Detectable Effect |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------------------------|
| Median time to first approval (days) | 4.0 days [fictional] | ≤ 1.0 day (aspirational) [fictional] | 1.0 day reduction (to ≤ 3.0 days) [fictional] |

### Secondary Metrics

| Metric | Current Baseline | Expected Direction |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------|
| Approval rejection rate | 38% [fictional] | Decrease (fewer incomplete submissions) |
| Blueprint completion rate (created to submitted within 14 days) | 72% [fictional] | Stable or slight decrease (enforcement may slow some authors) |
| Approval cycle count (submit to reject to revise to resubmit) | 1.8 cycles median [fictional] | Decrease (enforcement reduces first-submission rejections) |

### Guardrail Metrics

| Metric | Current Value | Acceptable Range |
|--------|--------------|------------------|
| Author-side Blueprint abandonment (created, no activity within 7 days) | 15% [fictional] | Must not increase by more than 10pp [fictional] |
| Author NPS (in-product prompt, 30 days post-enrollment) | 42 [fictional] | Must not decrease by more than 1.0 point [fictional] |

## Validation Approach

### Method

A/B test in the closed beta cohort. Control (A): current optional-section experience, where authors can submit Blueprints regardless of section completion state. Treatment (B): required-section enforcement, where the Submit for Approval button is disabled until all sections marked as required by the template admin are completed. Inline validation highlights incomplete sections with clear guidance on what is needed, minimizing friction through progressive disclosure rather than error-only feedback.

Randomization is at the account level to prevent contamination (all authors within an account see the same variant). Leo M. (Data Analyst) will monitor daily metrics and flag anomalies during the test.

### Sample Size & Duration

- Sample size: 250 Blueprints per variant (500 total) [fictional]
- Duration: 4 weeks (to capture two full enterprise business cycles, including Monday kickoff spikes, Friday approval delays, and month-end compliance pushes)
- Traffic allocation: 50/50 split across closed-beta accounts

### Pass/Fail Criteria

- **Validated if:** Median time-to-approval in treatment decreases by ≥ 1.0 day relative to control with p < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney U test), AND abandonment guardrail does not exceed +10pp threshold.
- **Invalidated if:** No statistically significant improvement in treatment, OR abandonment increases by more than 10pp, OR author NPS decreases by more than 1.0 point.
- **Inconclusive if:** Positive direction but effect size below MDE after 4 weeks. Extend by 2 additional weeks within the closed-beta cohort; make a final call at week 6.

## Risks & Assumptions

### Key Assumptions

- Template admins will designate a reasonable number of sections as required (not all, not none). If admins mark all sections as required, enforcement becomes onerous; if none, the treatment has no effect surface. Rachel V. will audit template configurations at experiment start and provide guidance to admins.
- Authors who are blocked from submitting will complete the missing sections rather than abandoning the Blueprint. If enforcement causes abandonment rather than completion, the bottleneck moves upstream without improving approval outcomes.
- The closed-beta account population (~300 Blueprints/week [fictional]) is large enough to reach statistical significance within 4 weeks.

### Risks

- **Abandonment spike:** Authors may perceive enforcement as friction and stop creating Blueprints. Mitigation: abandonment is a primary guardrail metric monitored daily; if treatment abandonment exceeds control by 15pp at week 1, pause the experiment.
- **Template admin misconfiguration:** If template admins mark all sections as required (including optional ones), authors will face excessive enforcement. Mitigation: audit template configuration at experiment start; if more than 20% of templates have all sections required, contact admins to recalibrate.
- **Enterprise business-cycle noise:** Enterprise document workflows are cyclical (quarterly planning, month-end compliance). Mitigation: 4-week duration spans mid-quarter; not aligned with a month-end spike.

## Timeline

| Phase | Dates | Duration |
|-------|-------|----------|
| Setup and instrumentation | Feb 24 to Mar 7, 2026 | 2 weeks |
| Test running | Mar 9 to Apr 5, 2026 | 4 weeks |
| Analysis | Apr 6 to Apr 11, 2026 | 1 week |
| Decision | Apr 14, 2026 | 1 day |
