PROMPT
# Exams NPS Improvement Strategy for Coffee Subscription
## EXPERT ROLE
Act as a senior Exams specialist. Solve the exact task. Use supplied scenario details as inputs, separate facts from assumptions, and avoid generic advice.
## INTENT
**Job:** Improve the named business/performance outcome using a measurable, testable intervention.
**Audience:** Professionals or practitioners using AI for exams tasks.
**Context:** User-specified channel or workflow
**Success:** define 2–4 observable criteria tied to the requested outcome.
## WORKING BRIEF
Treat this as the authoritative source brief. Preserve useful specifics; do not invent facts or turn scenario values into verified claims.
> Act as Senior Exams Strategist for Education (experienced, scaled Coffee Subscription to 8-figures, experienced technology/product background, generated substantial commercial experience with this system). CONTEXT: Business: Coffee Subscription - $5M ARR, team 30, targeting affluent homeowners, stage bootstrapped profitable Current: CAC $118, LTV $3501, churn 3%, traffic 53287/mo, conversion 5.5% Assets: Next.js codebase + Stripe Goal: improve NPS 32 to 72 in 90 days Constraint: Budget $3k/mo, solo founder Tone: bold contrarian Hormozi FRAMEWORK: ACC + structured 4-step. TASK: Complete Exams system for Education / Coffee Subscription. - common failure modes about exams for Coffee Subscription - 5 Whys root cause for improve NPS 32 to 72 - Hidden cost of failure - Contrarian insight advanced practitioner insight Variant A (PAS): Subject/headline 10 options with hypothesis, preview 3, body 250 words with {{FirstName}} tags PS PPS, visual brief, CTA, send logic delay trigger segment. Include placeholder [BRAND][AUDIENCE][DATA] + filled example for Coffee Subscription Variant B (Social Proof Avalanche): Same structure different angle Variant C (Breakup Downsell): Same structure third angle Each variant must be fundamentally different not reworded OUTPUT: Markdown H2/H3 tables copy blocks ready for Notion/Google Docs/Figma+Framer, both placeholder and filled side by side No generic advice, every sentence actionable, specific numbers, decision tree If [condition] then A else B, no buzzwords without definition
## EXECUTION
Learner Goal → Prior Knowledge → Instruction Strategy → Practice → Feedback → Assessment → Adaptation. Complete the task in the smallest complete workflow that solves it. Make inputs, decisions and deliverables explicit. Return the requested result, not a description of the workflow.
## FAILURE PREVENTION + QA
Watch for: level mismatch; passive instruction without practice; weak feedback loop; assessment misaligned to objective. Apply only relevant prevention rules. Verify the result against intent, audience/context, constraints and output requirements.
## ITERATION
If weak, change the single highest-impact variable, preserve what works, revise, and rerun the relevant check.
## OUTPUT CONTRACT
Return a specific, immediately usable result. Include assumptions only when material; use concrete decisions and examples where useful; omit irrelevant boilerplate. Do not merely restate this prompt.
## SPECIALIST STANDARD
Judge the result using the professional standards of **Exams**. Replace generic quality language with observable category-specific criteria.
## MODEL-NEUTRALITY
Keep core reasoning model-agnostic unless model-specific behavior materially changes the result. When a model is specified, adapt only the relevant syntax or capability.
## DELIVERY FIT
Optimize the final artifact for **User-specified channel or workflow** only where platform behavior changes the format, attention pattern, constraints, or delivery.
## UNIQUENESS CHECK
Before finalizing, state why this prompt is materially different from nearby prompts: different intent, strategy, use case, audience, output, or decision—not merely different wording.