Turn a client project into a LinkedIn case-study post that reads as proof, not a press release

PROJECT CONTEXT
3-month engagement redesigning checkout flow for a mid-size D2C brand

OBSTACLE OR CHALLENGE GOING IN
Mobile checkout had 6 form fields and no saved payment info, and the team had never run an A/B test before

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE
Cut the form to 2 fields, added Apple Pay/Google Pay, ran a 4-week A/B test against the old flow

REAL RESULT OR OUTCOME
Mobile checkout completion rate went from 41% to 58% over the test period

CLIENT NAMING PERMISSION
Can't name them — anonymize as a mid-size D2C skincare brand

WHY "CASE STUDY:" IS THE WORST POSSIBLE OPENING
A post that opens with "Case study:" or "Excited to share a project we just wrapped" announces itself as promotional before a single fact has been delivered, which gives a scrolling reader every reason to keep scrolling. The post has to open with the actual tension in the result — the gap between where things started and where they ended — the same mechanic that makes any hook work, applied to proof-of-work content instead of an opinion.

STRUCTURE
1. HOOK — lead with the tension in Mobile checkout completion rate went from 41% to 58% over the test period itself, stated as a claim or number, never with "Case study" or an announcement framing.
2. SITUATION (2-3 lines) — only the context needed to understand the stakes; cut anything that doesn't change how the obstacle or result lands.
3. OBSTACLE — state Mobile checkout had 6 form fields and no saved payment info, and the team had never run an A/B test before honestly and specifically, never softened into "a unique challenge" or "some initial hurdles" — name the actual thing that made this hard.
4. ACTION — describe Cut the form to 2 fields, added Apple Pay/Google Pay, ran a 4-week A/B test against the old flow specifically enough that a reader in a similar position could actually learn something concrete from it, not "we implemented a strategic solution" or any phrase that could describe literally any project.
5. RESULT — state Mobile checkout completion rate went from 41% to 58% over the test period exactly as given, with no rounding up, no adding precision that wasn't provided, and no estimating a number you weren't given even if a rounder or bigger-sounding figure would read better.
6. CLOSE — one line on what this generalizes to for someone else in a comparable position, not a bare "DM me to learn more" with no connective tissue to the story just told.

NAMING AND ANONYMIZATION
If Can't name them — anonymize as a mid-size D2C skincare brand means the client can't be named, anonymize by real industry and rough size ("a mid-size D2C skincare brand") rather than a fictional company name specific enough to be mistaken for a real, identifiable business — a fake name reads as more deceptive than an honest, generic description, even though both are technically anonymized.

HONESTY CHECK
If any part of Mobile checkout completion rate went from 41% to 58% over the test period as given is ambiguous, unverifiable from what was provided, or would require an inference to state cleanly, flag that gap explicitly in your output instead of smoothing over it with confident-sounding language that goes beyond what was actually given.

OUTPUT
The finished post, followed by a separate line listing anything flagged under the honesty check, or an explicit statement that every claim in the post traces directly to something provided, with nothing added or rounded.