diff --git a/contents/handbook/small-teams/experimentation/index.mdx b/contents/handbook/small-teams/experimentation/index.mdx
index 390f5a21a7de..597b30d55d30 100644
--- a/contents/handbook/small-teams/experimentation/index.mdx
+++ b/contents/handbook/small-teams/experimentation/index.mdx
@@ -82,3 +82,29 @@ hideAnchor: false
 
 ## Feature ownership
 You can find out more about the features we own [here](/handbook/engineering/feature-ownership)
+
+## Long term vision
+
+Imagine Bob is a product manager, and Alice is an engineer, both of whom love using PostHog. 
+
+During their weekly growth review, Posthog shows them that one of their workflows is performing 50% worse than other SaaS companies with a similar flow. They decide to build a new feature together, but they're unsure of the impact, so Bob & Alice decide to gate the feature via a feature flag.
+
+Alice builds the feature and runs the PostHog CLI, automatically converting his feature branch to a feature-flagged version. During creation, he selects the team template they normally use, called "Autorollout based on conversion metric", using the conversion metric that Posthog suggests. The feature progressively rolls out to internal users, then to beta users, then to remaining users. If their conversion metric falls by more than 20% the feature automatically rolls back and alerts their team. Alice requests a feature flag review from Bob.
+
+Bob checks the Posthog UI and because it's such an important feature - adds a safety condition for Sentry errors increasing by 30% and a few counter metrics. This should result in an automatic rollback as well. Bob starts the experiment.
+
+Thankfully, nothing goes wrong when the feature is rolled out. The team is disappointed that the feature doesn't seem to move any of the core company metrics, however. This doesn't fit into either of Alice's or Bob's model, so they dig deeper why this was the case.
+
+Before they even start, PostHog automatically does some impact analysis on their core metrics, and generates some insights into what properties are highly correlated with conversion & which aren't.
+
+As it turns out, people in USA and India love their new feature and show a 40% increase in conversion. Other countries, especially the UK, seem to dislike it so much that it negatively affects conversion. In the end, these forces balance out, leading to similar total conversion rates.
+
+They suspect it might have something to do with their positioning in other countries, so they run a marketing experiment using PostHog, where PostHog automatically generates recommended copy text to try out. It generates 5 variants, and they test these in all countries.
+
+As it turns out, copy wasn't the issue, and there's no significant change here. They watch a few recordings from the experiment to confirm there's nothing off here.
+
+Since it's not a positioning issue, Bob & Alice decide that it makes sense to introduce some personalisation, and let people opt-in to the new feature, and have it on by default for USA and India. They can customise this right from the feature flag, and set this up such that any users who opt-in on their UI automatically get the flag.
+
+PostHog keeps analysing metrics for this flag over time, and notifies Bob and Alice when their customers behaviour change. For example, if the conversion for users in UK has taken a turn for the better, or if enterprise customers have taken a turn for the worse.
+
+Our long term vision is to make all of this possible.