vc_010 · Statistical analysis — segment-mean significance

Status: ✓ Passing · Last run: 2026-06-04T05:56:25 · Pipeline: analyze · History: 2/3 runs passed (67%)

What was tested

Same data shape vc_006 uses (entity_with_segments) but the question asks for a STATISTICAL test (t-test for difference of means), not a descriptive aggregation. The planted effect is large by construction — Enterprise mean revenue ≈ $120k vs SMB ≈ $5k, n≈100 vs n≈400, so any reasonable significance test returns p << 0.05. This case fills the statistical column of the coverage matrix without requiring a new pipeline backend: it routes through the same analyze_agent chat surface as vc_006-009, but the question shape forces the agent to use run_python (for the t-test or bootstrap), not just query_bigquery.

What we planted in the data

What the system did

What we checked — all assertions passed

Status Assertion Detail
tool_was_used agent used run_python in session up through 'q_seg_diff_significant'
answer_mentions_fact all expected facts present in answer to 'q_seg_diff_significant'

How this could have gone wrong

Why this case matters

Statistical claims are where LLMs go wrong most quietly: the model knows the rhetoric of significance ("p-value", "confidence interval", "statistically meaningful") but can produce those words without actually computing anything. This case verifies that for an inferential question, the agent invokes run_python (the path where computation actually happens) — not just query_bigquery (where only data retrieval happens). Without this case, "the chat surface handles statistical questions" is unverified.

Reproducing

# from auto_insight_api/
python -m validation.v2 run vc_010 --pipeline v2 -v

← back to validation report