**Intervention:** A "compare plans" button was added to the pricing page on April 1. **Headline:** Suggestive but mixed. The intermediate metric (pricing → checkout) moved in the expected direction, but the bottom-line metric (total paid signups) barely moved, and one of the steps (checkout → paid) moved the wrong way. The competitor change on April 10 confounds about 70% of the comparison window. **What moved:** - Pricing → checkout conversion: 4.2% → 4.8%, a 14% relative improvement. If real, meaningful. - Checkout → paid conversion: 62% → 59%, a 5% relative decline. Could be noise or could reflect lower-intent traffic now reaching checkout. **What didn't move:** - Total paid signups: 87/week → 89/week, a 2% increase. Within typical week-to-week variance for a metric like this; not detectable as a real effect. - The "compare plans" button was supposed to drive more paid signups; that bottom-line number didn't materially move. **What else changed in the window:** - Competitor announced a price cut on April 10. This affected April 10-30 in the April data — about 70% of the comparison window. The competitor change would be expected to pressure pricing → checkout (people comparing your prices to a now-lower alternative) and checkout → paid (some choosing the competitor at checkout). Both metrics are consistent with that direction. - Standard weekly seasonality is present but not flagged in the input. Assuming the March and April windows include similar weekday composition. **Likely effect of the intervention specifically:** The pricing → checkout improvement is consistent with two stories: (a) the compare-plans button actually helped users feel confident enough to proceed; (b) the competitor's price cut sent more comparison-shoppers to your page, who then reached checkout in higher numbers before deciding. Both are plausible; the data doesn't separate them. The checkout → paid decline cuts in favor of story (b) — comparison shoppers reaching checkout would also be more likely to bail. But the magnitude isn't strong enough to be conclusive. If a specific effect has to be estimated: small positive, somewhere between 0% and a 10% relative improvement in pricing → checkout. Not the full 14% the raw comparison suggests. **Counterfactual:** Without the intervention, the best estimate of the April outcome is: pricing → checkout might have risen slightly (3-5% relative) due to the competitor effect alone; checkout → paid would have dropped similarly; total signups would have moved within normal variance. The actual numbers are close to this counterfactual, which is part of why the intervention's specific effect is hard to isolate. **Recommendation:** Keep the change. The data is consistent with a small positive effect and definitely not a negative effect on the headline metric. But the "win" framing for the compare-plans button is not supported. To get a cleaner read, look at the next 4 weeks of data (now removed from the competitor announcement effect) and check whether pricing → checkout stays elevated relative to the March baseline. If it does, the intervention had an effect. If it falls back, it was likely the competitor's move that briefly pulled it up.