Q: Why does Developer consistently score +17 pts above programme NPS across 3 cohorts — is this audience fit, content relevance, or delivery?

Developer NPS averages +52 across C15 and C16 (vs. programme +38), but sample sizes are too small to isolate whether audience fit, content relevance, or delivery is the primary driver.

Across the two cohorts with Developer NPS data, Developers scored +67 (n=12, C15) and +50 (n=6, C16), with C18 Developers scoring +40 (n=5) — all above their respective cohort NPS of +55, +17, and +35. The pattern is consistent but the mechanism cannot be determined from the data available. Content relevance is a plausible hypothesis: Developers are builders, and the programme's hands-on, technical format (caching, sub-agents, agentic development) aligns with their working mode — one C15 promoter cited 'the whole cadence of the workshop and the planned topics.' Audience fit is also plausible: Developers likely arrive with clearer expectations for a technical lab format than Transformation Leads, who are the primary detractor segment across cohorts (C16 Transformation Lead NPS: -12, C16 detractor verbatims cite missing go-to-market and business strategy content). Delivery cannot be assessed as the driver because confidence delta data shows consistent D1-to-D2 gains across all personas, not Developer-specific improvements. The data shows what, not why. Key data points: · Developer NPS: +67 (C15, n=12), +50 (C16, n=6), +40 (C18, n=5) — all above cohort NPS · Transformation Lead NPS: +69 (C15, n=13), -12 (C16, n=8), +19 (C18, n=16) — highest variance and most detractors · C16 Transformation Lead detractors explicitly cite missing go-to-market and business strategy content, suggesting content-persona misalignment, not delivery failure Caveats: Developer n is 5–12 per cohort — findings are directionally consistent but statistically fragile; no single cohort meets the n=20 threshold for confident conclusions. To isolate the driver, you would need post-event qualitative data segmented by persona (e.g., expectation-vs-reality ratings) or a controlled comparison cohort where content or delivery variables are held constant.

2026-07-23 12:47 UTC

Q: What explains Deloitte's persistent below-programme NPS score across 2 cohorts, and what would change it?

Deloitte scores NPS +0 in C16 and -20 in C18 — 38–58 points below programme average — driven by senior practitioners expecting go-to-market and failure-pattern content that the programme does not deliver.

Across both cohorts where Deloitte NPS is recorded, scores are deeply negative relative to programme benchmarks: NPS +0 (C16, n=6) and NPS -20 (C18, n=5). The verbatim evidence from Deloitte detractors is unusually specific and consistent: C16 produced two Deloitte detractor comments explicitly citing the absence of go-to-market content, failed PoC analysis, and solution design — one Partner/MD-level respondent scored 2 and stated 'There was no go to market. No what to do to not have failed pocs.' A second Deloitte detractor (Senior practitioner, score 6) echoed this: 'I would like to learn more insights and solution design.' The programme's confidence deltas show it effectively builds apply-AI confidence (D1 to D2 gains of +0.14–0.35 across all cohorts), but this technical uplift is misaligned with what Deloitte's senior attendees came for. Deloitte participants skew toward Transformation Lead persona and senior seniority levels, a profile that in C16 showed NPS -12 (n=8), suggesting the persona-content mismatch compounds the org-level pattern. What would change it: adding a dedicated go-to-market and client engagement design module, and optionally pre-screening or streaming Deloitte attendees into a Transformation Lead track with more strategic content. Key data points: · Deloitte NPS: +0 in C16 (n=6), -20 in C18 (n=5) vs programme NPS of +38 · C16 Transformation Lead NPS: -12 (n=8) — Deloitte's dominant persona in that cohort · Two of three C16 Deloitte verbatim detractors explicitly cited missing go-to-market and failed PoC content; one was Partner/MD level scoring 2 · Programme confidence gains (D1→D2 apply-AI): +0.22 to +0.35 across cohorts — technical uplift is real but misaligned with Deloitte senior attendee expectations · C18 Deloitte NPS -20 vs PwC +60 in same cohort (n=10) — gap of 80 NPS points in identical programme delivery Caveats: Deloitte n=6 (C16) and n=5 (C18) are both below the 20-respondent threshold for confident conclusions — treat as directional signals, not statistically robust findings. Org-level data is absent for C15, so it is unknown whether the pattern predates these two cohorts. Seniority and persona data for C18 Deloitte respondents is partially unmatched, limiting profile analysis.

2026-07-23 12:48 UTC

Q: What do promoters and passives say about the programme, and what specifically separates them?

Promoters cite hands-on depth and new learning as drivers; passives consistently wanted more — more Claude-native tools, more go-to-market content, or less overlap with what they already knew.

Across C15–C18, promoters (51.6% of respondents, n=48) highlight specific content depth — caching, sub-agents, agentic development — and the quality of facilitator engagement as standout positives. Their language is outcome-oriented: they learned something new and concrete. Passives (34.4%, n=32) are broadly positive about the hands-on format but consistently identify a gap between what was delivered and what they needed: one wanted more time in Claude Desktop and Claude.ai, one noted that Day 1 content was mandatory learning at their company, and another valued Q&A with presenters more than the structured training itself. The separating factor is whether the programme matched the participant's existing knowledge level and role context — promoters felt stretched or introduced to genuinely new material, passives felt the content was useful but not fully calibrated to their situation. Detractor verbatims reinforce this: they wanted business application depth (go-to-market, why PoCs fail, solution design) or greater technical depth (token management, advanced Claude integration), not the middle ground the programme currently occupies. Key data points: · Promoters (51.6%, n=48) cite specific depth — caching, sub-agents, hands-on exercises, and tutor quality — as primary drivers across all three cohorts · Passives (34.4%, n=32) acknowledge hands-on value but flag a content-fit gap: overlap with existing company training (C16), insufficient Claude-native tool coverage (C18), or getting more value from ad-hoc Q&A than structured content (C15) · The separating factor is content-level calibration: promoters felt the programme added new knowledge; passives felt it was relevant but not pitched at quite the right level for their role or existing experience Caveats: Verbatim sample is small — approximately 3 quotes per segment per cohort — and may not represent the full distribution of reasons within each NPS group. Structured open-text themes or coded sentiment across all respondents would allow more confident generalisation beyond these illustrative examples.

2026-07-23 12:48 UTC