Q: What is driving the high passive rate in C22 London July 20–21, 2026 — what do the verbatims say and what would convert them to promoters?

C22 London's 53% passive rate is driven by two themes: insufficient hands-on exercise time and content perceived as too basic for advanced participants.

Three C22 passive verbatims are available (n=3), all scoring 7. Two explicitly cite structural or pacing issues: one Capgemini Architect (Learning & Exploring) noted 'very technical content but little time to really run the exercises,' and an unmatched respondent requested 'more presentations to present concepts and solutions rather than experiencing with it' — a tension between pace and depth. The sole detractor (NPS 6, Bain Architect, Operating at the Frontier) directly states 'topics were too basic' and called for an Anthropic engineer to cover advanced content. The one-word passive response ('content') from an IndiciumAI Developer at the frontier level offers no actionable signal. To convert passives to promoters, the data points to two levers: (1) extending or restructuring exercise time so hands-on work is completable, and (2) introducing an advanced track or senior Anthropic-led session for frontier-level participants. Note that C22 had significant day-2 drop-off (n_d1=55, n_d2=32, matched=24), which likely skews verbatims toward those who stayed — the full passive population's views are not captured. Key data points: · 53.1% passive rate in C22, highest across all four cohorts (vs. 40.3% programme average) · Only 3 passive verbatims available from n=32 respondents — all scored 7 · 2 of 3 passives cite time or pacing issues with hands-on exercises; 1 detractor cites content being too basic for frontier-level participants · C22 had the largest day-1 to day-2 drop-off: 55 → 32 respondents (42% attrition) Caveats: Only 3 passive verbatims are available for C22, making it impossible to draw statistically confident conclusions about what drives the full 53% passive cohort. Day-2 attrition of 42% means many passives may not have completed surveys — collecting exit feedback from day-1-only attendees would materially sharpen this diagnosis.

2026-07-23 21:27 UTC

Q: Why did PwC's NPS vary so significantly across C19–C22, and what should we monitor or change?

PwC's NPS swung from +54 (C19) to -11 (C20) to +33 (C21) — driven by audience mix mismatch, not programme failure — with Transformation Leads and lower-proficiency PwC attendees consistently citing content as too technical or insufficiently relevant to their roles.

PwC's NPS varied sharply: +54 in C19 (n=13), -11 in C20 (n=9), and +33 in C21 (n=12). C22 London had no PwC org-level NPS reported. The C20 collapse to -11 is the critical data point: PwC detractor verbatims in C20 explicitly cite poor role relevance ('not as directly relevant for my work in finance consulting') and content being 'very technical' for non-engineering personas. In C21, PwC detractors flagged the programme as 'not differentiated by level of technical skill' and 'very heavy on Jupyter notebooks which is not relevant to my current role.' This pattern points to a recurring problem: PwC sends a mix of Transformation Leads and lower-proficiency attendees who find the content technically pitched above or laterally away from their day-to-day work. C19's stronger PwC score (+54) likely reflects a more favourably matched cohort composition. All three org-level PwC sample sizes (n=9–13) are small — treat directional, not definitive. Key data points: · PwC NPS: +54 in C19 (n=13), -11 in C20 (n=9), +33 in C21 (n=12) · C20 Transformation Lead NPS was +17 overall (n=18), the lowest persona score in that cohort; PwC TLs were primary detractors · C21 Developer NPS dropped to -6 (n=16) and Fractional AI / Ode scored -30 (n=10), suggesting a broader audience-fit problem in that run, not just PwC-specific Caveats: PwC org-level n is 9–13 across cohorts — too small to draw firm conclusions; a single detractor shifts NPS materially. To sharpen this, capture pre-registration role and proficiency data for PwC attendees and track whether TL vs. technical splits are changing cohort to cohort.

2026-07-23 21:29 UTC

Q: DXC is a new partner appearing in C19–C22 with n=7 across cohorts and NPS +43. What does their attendance pattern suggest about engagement or fit?

DXC appears in only one cohort (C20) with n=4 and NPS +50 — too thin to assess engagement patterns across C19–C22.

The data brief shows DXC Technology appearing in C20 with n=4 and NPS +50, which is above the C20 cohort average of +35. However, DXC does not appear in the NPS-by-org breakdowns for C19, C21, or C22, suggesting either no attendance in those cohorts or attendance below the reporting threshold. With only 4 respondents across a single cohort, no attendance pattern can be reliably established. The claim that DXC has n=7 across C19–C22 is not verifiable from the data provided — the brief only surfaces n=4 in C20. The NPS +50 in C20 is a positive signal but is based on a sample too small to draw conclusions about fit or sustained engagement. Key data points: · DXC Technology: NPS +50 in C20, n=4 — the only cohort where DXC appears in org-level breakdowns · C20 cohort NPS: +35 — DXC's +50 is 15 points above the cohort average · DXC is absent from org-level breakdowns in C19, C21, and C22 — no multi-cohort attendance pattern visible in the data Caveats: n=4 in a single cohort is well below the threshold for confident conclusions; n=7 cited in the question cannot be reconciled with the data brief, which only surfaces n=4. Attendance rosters or registration data by cohort would be needed to confirm whether DXC sent delegates to other cohorts and simply fell below reporting thresholds.

2026-07-23 21:29 UTC