Campaign insights to creative proposals: benchmark methods and results · 16 October 2026
Models receive brand context, codified campaign learning and a digest of the existing creative portfolio, then propose three next tests per prompt condition. The proposals are blind-scored for their commercial and creative quality.
Reviewed 16 October 2026 · Tests and editorial direction: Ben Nancarrow · AI-assisted writing and checks.
The inputs combine brand guidelines for an invented brand, existing insight memory and a live-ad gap digest. Each condition asks for three concepts. This is a test of translating supplied learning into proposals; the model is not discovering that learning from a live account.
What changes between prompts
Both conditions receive the same brand context and line-specific inputs, with a 150-word concept limit. The simple prompt states the task. The scaffold adds judging criteria, an ad-quality framework and a hook/narrative/visual/conversion structure. It therefore tests that whole package of guidance, not a single wording change.
How the result is scored
Ben blind-scores commercial potential, creative innovation, and coherence/suitability on a 0–10 scale. A concept clears the test-worthy threshold only when every dimension reaches 8. The displayed mean summarises quality; it does not measure the ad's eventual conversion rate. Scoring hides model labels, although the scaffold's formatting can reveal the prompt condition.
All 16 reviewed model results
Human-rated proposal quality / 10
Model
Result / setup
Scored outputs
Configuration / recorded test date
Cost / scored output
Claude Opus 5.5provisional
7.67/10Simple prompt
6
thinking_max16 October 2026
$0.461Mixed cost basis
Google Gemini 4 Argonprovisional
7.33/10Simple prompt
6
high16 October 2026
$0.018Recorded spend
Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewprovisional
7.22/10Scaffolded prompt
6
reasoning_high16 October 2026
$0.011Recorded spend
Claude Fable 5.1provisional
7.00/10Simple prompt
6
thinking_max16 October 2026
$0.415API-equivalent estimate
Meta Muse Spark 1.3provisional
7.00/10Scaffolded prompt
6
high16 October 2026
$0.007Recorded spend
Gemini 3.8 Flashprovisional
6.89/10Simple prompt
6
reasoning_high16 October 2026
$0.004Recorded spend
Gemini 3.5 Flashprovisional
6.85/10Simple prompt
18
reasoning_high16 October 2026
$0.001Recorded spend
Claude Opus 5provisional
6.78/10Simple prompt
12
thinking_max16 October 2026
$0.032Mixed cost basis
Claude Opus 4.8provisional
6.74/10Simple prompt
18
thinking_high16 October 2026
$0.013Recorded spend
Gemini 3.7 Flashprovisional
6.74/10Simple prompt
18
reasoning_high16 October 2026
$0.001Recorded spend
GPT-5.5provisional
6.67/10Simple prompt
18
reasoning_high16 October 2026
$0.008Recorded spend
GPT-6 Solprovisional
6.56/10Simple prompt
6
xhigh23 September 2026
$0.015Recorded spend
Meta Muse Wonderprovisional
6.56/10Simple prompt
6
max16 October 2026
$0.026Recorded spend
GPT-5.6 Solprovisional
6.41/10Simple prompt
18
xhigh16 October 2026
$0.037Recorded spend
GPT-6 Astraprovisional
6.22/10Scaffolded prompt
6
xhigh16 October 2026
$0.122Recorded spend
Claude Fable 5provisional
6.11/10Simple prompt
18
thinking_max16 October 2026
$0.135API-equivalent estimate
Recorded output counts can include repeats and both prompt conditions. Configurations and cost bases are retained; joint scores remain joint.
This record preserves the evidence and interpretation reviewed together. The live explorer can advance independently. Public results include provisional evidence; the methods above define what the scores measure.