A sales enablement lead wants to determine whether Copilot's email drafting assistance in Dynamics 365 Sales actually improves seller outcomes before expanding it beyond a 10-person pilot group. (Select TWO.) Which two actions would produce a valid basis for that decision?
Select all correct answers, then click Submit.
Short Explanation
If you want to know whether a new habit actually helped, you need two things: a fair comparison group, and enough time to see past the initial excitement of trying something new. That is exactly the two moves that hold up here, comparing the pilot sellers against similar sellers who aren't using the feature over the same stretch of time, and comparing those same pilot sellers' own results before and after they started using it, measured consistently. Either one alone tells you something, together they make the case solid. What doesn't hold up is only looking at the first couple weeks right after announcing the pilot, because everyone tends to lean in harder when something is brand new, and that enthusiasm fades, so it is not a fair read of lasting impact. And casually asking people in the hallway whether they liked it gives you opinions, not outcomes, with nothing you can actually measure or compare. Real evaluation needs real numbers over a real window, not a honeymoon period or a gut check.
Full Explanation
The correct answers are A and C. Comparing the pilot group's outcomes against a comparable group not using the feature over the same period controls for external factors like seasonality or market conditions, while comparing the pilot group's own before-and-after performance over a consistent window isolates the effect of adopting the feature on the same sellers' behavior. Using both approaches together gives the enablement lead a defensible basis for deciding whether to expand the rollout. Option D is incorrect because measuring only the first two weeks right after a pilot's announcement captures a novelty effect, where participants engage more enthusiastically simply because the program is new, which does not reflect sustained impact. Option B is incorrect because an informal, subjective conversation about personal preference produces no measurable outcome data and cannot be compared across time periods or against a control group, making it unsuitable as evidence for an expansion decision. A sound evaluation requires objective, outcome-based metrics measured over a stable window, either against a comparable baseline group or against the same group's own prior performance, not a short novelty window or anecdotal impressions.