Platform
Resources
Rethinking coverage, metrics, and hypotheses when tests run in the thousands
For a startup shipping one feature a month, an A/B test is a neat side project. At a global enterprise shipping dozens of variations every day, experimentation becomes an operating system: decisions, incentives, and even architecture tilt around it.
Complexity creeps in—not because the math gets harder, but because the human and organizational surface area expands by orders of magnitude.
From our perspective at Statsig, we often discover that three levers decide whether that complexity fuels insight or grinds progress to a halt: 1) coverage, 2) metric sophistication, and 3), hypothesis quality.
Coverage: What fraction of product change is truly tested?
When only 20 percent of features are instrumented, experiments feel optional—the first casualty when timelines slip. At 100 percent, experimentation is the release gate; no feature “ships” until the data says it’s safe.
Why enterprises struggle: parallel roadmaps, legacy code paths, and outward pressure for quarterly results incentivize “just launch it.”
Hidden cost of partial coverage: blind spots compound. Teams over‑index on the few things they do measure, and leadership starts believing an incomplete trend line.
Moving up the curve:
Integrate feature flags and experiments so every feature can be a test by default.
Align engineering KPIs with metrics impact, not feature launch.
Sunset legacy code that cannot be instrumented; it taxes every future decision.
Metric sophistication: From single‑point KPIs to a holistic OEC
Click‑through rate is seductive—it moves fast and looks crisp on a dashboard. But when CVR improves while retention craters, the illusion breaks. Mature programs graduate to an Overall Evaluation Criterion (OEC): a weighted bundle of revenue, engagement, risk, and customer sentiment.
| Maturity | Metrics in scope | Typical questions answered |
|---|---|---|
| Basic | CVR, add-to-cart, page speed | “Did people click more?” |
| Progressive | Retention, paid conversion, churn | “Does it create lasting value?” |
| Comprehensive | OEC blending revenue, LTV, support tickets, risk scores | “Is this good for customers and the business in the long run?” |
Why enterprises struggle: each domain team owns a slice of data; merging them requires cross‑org agreements and latency‑tolerant pipelines.
Moving up the curve:
Metrics is the language of the company. Make them clear and transparent with a centralized catalog.
For experiments, pick a couple of primary metrics and a few guardrail metrics. Try to standardize across similar experiments.
Have an analytics team to own OEC, maintain the core list, and understand the trade-off among them.
Hypothesis quality: From “let’s see what sticks” to cumulative learning
Running thousands of tests means nothing if each one is an isolated coin flip that never informs the next decision.
Anti‑pattern: backlog grooming devolves into a popularity contest—whoever yells loudest gets a test.
Signs of maturity:
Every test card starts with a falsifiable statement (“If we shorten onboarding by one step, day‑7 retention will improve by ≥ 1 %”).
Post‑test synthesis is mandatory; win or lose, learnings feed into a central knowledge base.
The next cohort of ideas must reference prior evidence (“We saw that simplifying step B mattered more than step A last quarter; this test digs deeper on B”).
Moving up the curve:
Teach causal inference basics so PMs write sharper hypotheses.
Time‑box an “evidence read‑out” meeting before backlog grooming.
Invest in searchable experiment archives — context ages quickly when teams reorganize.
Putting it together: a practical maturity matrix
| Axis | Foundation | Developing | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage | < 40% features tested | 40–80% | 80–100%, experimentation-first release flow |
| Metrics | Single KPI | KPI + downstream metric | Stable OEC + Templates |
| Hypotheses | Ad-hoc, result-chasing | Some hypothesis discipline | Evidence-linked, cumulative learning |
Progress rarely advances uniformly; a company may boast an elegant OEC yet still test only flagship features. The matrix clarifies which hinge will unlock the next order‑of‑magnitude gain.
Beyond the matrix: navigating the trade‑offs
Velocity vs. coverage: Full coverage sounds ideal until it slows launch cadence. The key is the integration of Feature Flags and Experiments. Impact readouts shouldn’t create additional engineering work.
Signal vs. data overload: A rich OEC invites analysis paralysis. A central platform to synthesize information with a trustworthy stats engine and intuitive UI can boost data literacy across the company.
Curiosity vs. discipline: Encourage blue‑sky ideas, but insist they materialize as testable hypotheses. Innovation thrives inside guardrails.
Closing thoughts
Complexity is not the enemy; unmanaged complexity is.
Enterprises that embrace full coverage, holistic metrics, and disciplined hypotheses turn experimentation into a flywheel—each rotation easier, faster, and more insightful than the last. Those who treat tests as one‑off gambles drown in their own data exhaust. The difference is rarely tooling alone; it’s the strategic choice to own complexity rather than evade it.
Request a demo
