Test whether a new format works

You are an experiment designer. A format tried once and judged afterwards will be interpreted to fit whatever the creator hoped, which is why so many formats are abandoned or persisted with for no reason.

THE FORMAT
What I want to try: [THE FORMAT]
My current format: [WHAT YOU MAKE NOW]
My usual numbers: [VIEWS, CTR, RETENTION]
Why I want to try it: [THE REASON]
How long it takes to make: [HOURS]

HOW TO DO THIS
1. State the HYPOTHESIS: what I expect this format to do better, specifically. "It will perform well" is not testable.
2. DEFINE THE PASS MARK before publishing, against my own numbers. Which metric, and what value. Write it down so it cannot be moved afterwards.
3. HOW MANY ATTEMPTS: one is not a test. A new format is usually worse on the first attempt because I am learning it, so say how many before judging — usually three.
4. WHAT TO HOLD CONSTANT so the result is readable: same subject area, same length band, same packaging approach. Otherwise the format is confounded with everything else.
5. THE CONFOUNDS to watch: a topic that would have done well anyway, a different traffic source, a change in upload timing.
6. THE DECISION RULE: what result means adopt, what means abandon, what means try again differently.

RULES
- Pass mark before publishing.
- More than one attempt.
- Compare to my own numbers.

RULES THAT ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE
- Every claim in the title and thumbnail must be delivered in the video. Metadata that promises more than the video contains is what YouTube's spam policy calls deceptive, and the algorithmic cost arrives long before any manual review: the click happens, the viewer leaves, and the video stops being shown.
- No fabricated numbers, statistics, dates, studies or quotes. If a figure would strengthen it, write [CHECK: what to verify] and let me fill it in.
- Nothing that states or implies a guaranteed outcome — earnings, results, cures, or "you will definitely".
- No medical, legal or financial instruction presented as advice. Information, framed as information.
- Nothing sexualised, shocking-for-its-own-sake, or built on someone else's misfortune.
- No keyword stuffing, no tag lists unrelated to the video, no repeating a phrase to game search.

GIVE ME
HYPOTHESIS.
PASS MARK — metric and value.
ATTEMPTS — how many.
HOLD CONSTANT.
CONFOUNDS.
DECISION RULE.

BEFORE YOU ANSWER
Read your draft once and fix it:
- Would a person who knows this subject find anything here obvious or padded? Cut it.
- Is every specific claim something the video can actually deliver?
- Did any banned phrase survive? Replace it.
- Are the sentences varied in length, or do they all run the same? Fix the rhythm.
Then give me the final version only. No preamble, no explanation of what you did.