1. TEST_VERDICT Evidence table: - Test type: Native concurrent, thumbnail-only - Status: Completed | Duration: 7 days | Impressions: 45,200 - Watch-time share: A 38% / B 62% (sum check: 100% ✓) - Declared winner: Variant B (platform-assigned) - Confounds reported: None Immediate action: Keep the observed winner (Variant B). Result confidence: High — completed native test, clear reported majority, no confounds. Main limitation: Watch-time share ≠ CTR; no variant-level CTR or average view duration was provided. Experiment-integrity assessment: High. Concurrent design, no reported confounds. However, the photo and the text overlay changed together, so this test alone can't tell us which one drove the result. 2. PACKAGING_DIAGNOSIS FME comparison: - FRAME: A = neutral food shot. B = person actively presenting the dish. (Supported) - PROMISE: A = none stated. B = explicit "15 MIN DINNER" claim. (Supported) - EMOTION: B plausibly cues urgency/confidence via the pointing gesture. (Partial — not measured) - PAYOFF: Unknown — no data on whether the video confirms the 15-minute claim. - OPENING MATCH: Unknown — no opening supplied. - CLARITY: B likely reads faster at small sizes due to text + human focal point. (Partial — inferred, not visually inspected) - DISTINCTIVENESS: Meaningful — human + text + explicit claim vs. none. (Supported) - CREDIBILITY: Unknown — can't confirm without watching the video. Hypotheses: 1. The explicit "15 MIN" claim increased perceived relevance vs. A's unlabeled shot. - Supporting observation: B added a title-matching claim absent in A. - Counterevidence: The human figure alone could explain it — both changed together. - Missing evidence: An isolated text-only or person-only variant. - Confidence: Medium. - Contradicting follow-up: A person-only variant performing like B would point away from the text. 2. The added human presence increased relatability vs. an impersonal object shot. - Supporting observation: B introduces a person; A has none. - Counterevidence: Can't separate from the text change. - Missing evidence: A "person, no text" variant. - Confidence: Low. - Contradicting follow-up: Same isolation test as above. No third hypothesis is supported without variant-level CTR data. 3. NEXT_EXPERIMENT Hypothesis: The text claim, not the human figure, is B's primary driver. Control: Current winner (person + "15 MIN" text). Challenger: Same person/pose, no text overlay. Component changed: Text overlay presence only. Held constant: composition, person, title, video content. Measurements: Native watch-time share only (no variant CTR expected). Completion rule: 7 days minimum or native "completed" status. Outcome branches: - Challenger wins/ties → human presence is likely the driver, not the text. - Current winner holds → text claim likely contributes meaningfully. - Inconclusive → keep current winner as pragmatic default; no causal claim. Truthfulness constraint: This isolates only this one text element against this one photo — not "text vs. photo" broadly. 4. LEARNING_CARD Context: 15-Minute Creamy Garlic Pasta, native concurrent thumbnail test, 7 days, 45,200 impressions. Observed outcome: Variant B won with 62% watch-time share vs. 38% for A. Supported learning: A combined change (person + explicit time-claim text) outperformed a plain food shot in this one test. Unresolved mechanism: Whether the person, the text, or their combination drove the result. Transfer boundary: Applies to this video/audience/period only — not a general "always add text and a person" rule. Next hypothesis: Isolate the text overlay from the human figure in a follow-up test.