Programme Satisfaction
Strong promoter majority — NPS +50 reflects broad programme endorsement.
+50NPS · n=50
58% Promoters34% Passives8% Detractors
95% CI: +32 → +68 · True NPS lies within this range with 95% confidence (n=50 respondents)
Confidence Arc
Strong end-of-Day-1 build confidence — cohort leaves Day 1 ready to apply Claude in client work (mean 4.2/5).
4.2end-of-D1 build / 5
4.2D2 Design / 5
4.1D2 Commercial / 5
4.0D2 Build / 5
Audience
67 participants across 6 organisations — Developer majority with applying in practice the most common AI experience level.
Top Organisations
Deloitte (32) KPMG (28) EPAM (3) Casper Studios (2) Bounteous (1)
Voice of Participant
What participants said — dominant theme from each NPS segment.
Promoters
Participants valued hands-on, real-world exploration of Claude's latest capabilities and ecosystem applications for professional consulting.
Passives
Attendees appreciated foundational content but wanted deeper technical dives, differentiated tracks, or Anthropic engineer insights for advanced learners.
Detractors
Technical setup friction and misaligned audience expectations undermined learning; material felt derivative and better suited for beginners than experienced practitioners.
Facilitator Notes
Room Composition
The KPMG group are hungry for deep technical training on complex agent deployment at scale. They are the first at KPMG so we see that they are wanting to show up well in front of their contingent and are asking highly technical and complicated questions in front of the group (most of the time when we unpack it's a simpler ask). We're leaning in! Planning to give them a role where possible to share their expertise. We'll also share with them the path to CCAF and the roadmap Anthropic shared about additional certifications and resources that will be made available to partners (they weren't aware so that's a good value add).
Any tips you have for us on positioning foundational content for a highly advanced audience so they see the value rather than feeling held back by it?
I'll also position them as force multipliers for their organizations. Even if they're beyond the foundation level themselves, understanding these concepts helps them better support, coach, and guide the teams that will be building from them. Most importantly, I want to make sure they feel heard and that we're acknowledging the expertise they're bringing into the room.
We're doing some stakeholder mgmt with their point person who is lovely, too!
For Next Time
None
KPMG — [{'source': 'Sammy Rogers (SF Basecamp facilitator)'}, "we had a full table of engineers heads-down on other work for most of D1 and all of D2, including the entire 30-minute applied AI Q&A while the rest of the room was fully engaged. I was standing right behind them and they weren't even trying to be subtle.", "One participant at that table asked a question about LangChain, then immediately went back to his LangChain Jupyter buildalong in VS Code lol. A read could be that the table had formed the perspective that the content wasn't valuable and opted out entirely. Understandable for engineers who don't need a Jupyter notebook walkthrough, but my concern is they may have skipped the foundational building blocks that underpin the more advanced work.", "Worth monitoring in future cohorts, though their on-site contact said they'd be more intentional about who they select going forward given this was last minute."]