Needs more than a quick edit9 of 12 checks passed
Factual errors in ticket counts (ordering 31 vs 30, credits export 8 vs 10) and word count exceedance mean a PM would need to re-check evidence and edit for length.
Output
Synthesis: what customers need from Larder next (for the CPO)
Headline: The broadest and best-evidenced problem is that customers can't easily tell what actually arrived, and it costs them money and hours every week. Demand for "more suppliers" is real, but nearly all of it comes from one account. That account wants its own four suppliers connected, which is not the same as a marketplace. Next quarter we should build delivery check-in and discrepancy tracking, and handle Calder Group's request as a bounded onboarding project.
Finding 1: Delivery and invoice mismatches are the most widespread pain
Evidence: strong. It is consistent across both sources, comes from many accounts, and customers describe concrete costs.
- Tickets: "Delivery didn't match order" (34) and "Invoice reconciliation" (29) describe the same problem from two ends: ordered, received and invoiced don't line up. Together they account for 63 of 200 tickets (32%) from about 62 different accounts. By number of customers affected, this is our largest problem.
- Interviews: 8 of 10 describe it. Examples:
- About £600 lost in a month on undelivered items (gastropub).
- A finance team spending days every week chasing credit notes (hotel).
- Sunday nights reconciling invoices with a highlighter (bistro).
- Disputes with suppliers that can't be won without proof (bakery).
- Checking deliveries on a clipboard, then re-typing everything (noodle bar).
- Paying mismatched invoices because there's no time to check (steakhouse).
Finding 2: "Add more suppliers" is the top ticket category, but it is essentially one customer
Evidence: strong that the demand is concentrated; weak that there is broad demand for a marketplace.
- Calder Group's tickets: 75 tickets (37.5%) fall in this category, but 58 come from Calder Group alone. They repeatedly ask for the same four suppliers: - Brakes (15 tickets) - Their meat supplier (15) - Their dairy supplier (14) - Their wine merchant (14) They want suppliers they already use connected to Larder. They are not asking to discover new suppliers. - Everyone else: The remaining 17 tickets come from 17 accounts and are mostly generic ("Any plans for more suppliers?", "Would like more produce suppliers"). - Interviews: Only 2 of 10 clearly want this (the pizzeria and Calder). The tapas bar is lukewarm ("I suppose") and says paperwork is the real problem. The café group says outright that "finding suppliers isn't the problem."
The earlier claim that "most customers we spoke to want a marketplace" is not supported.
Finding 3: Calder is a real commercial opportunity of a specific kind
Evidence: moderate. This is one account's clear statement, untested.
- Calder has 14 sites and says it would move all its ordering to us if its suppliers were on the platform.
- We don't yet know how much of its ordering runs through Larder today or what the account is worth. We need that before sizing the effort.
- Their need is met by onboarding four named suppliers, not by building a marketplace.
Other signals
- Login and access (31 tickets) and ordering questions (31) look routine.
- One subset matters for the recommendation below: 10 tickets are "can't log in on tablet," and the tablet is where delivery check-in would happen.
Limits of this evidence
- Small interview sample. There are 10 interviews and we don't know how participants were chosen.
- One quarter of tickets. Ticket volume measures who contacts support, not who has the problem. Customers who silently pay wrong invoices, like the steakhouse, won't file tickets, so mismatch pain is probably under-counted.
- Data quality. Support staff assign the categories, and a few accounts show inconsistent site counts across tickets.
- No usage or revenue data yet. We can't weigh Calder against the long tail of smaller accounts.
What this means for next quarter
1. Build delivery check-in and discrepancy tracking. This is our core promise ("track deliveries and invoices") and is where the broad pain sits. Scope: - Check a delivery against the order at the door, on phone or tablet, replacing the clipboard and the re-typing. - Record shorts, substitutions and short weights, with a photo and timestamp to use as evidence in disputes. - Flag invoice lines that don't match what was received. - Raise credit notes and track them until they arrive. - Show credits in the accountant export (8 tickets ask for this). - Fix tablet login as part of the work.
Success measures: - Share of deliveries checked in. - £ of discrepancies recorded and credited. - Fewer tickets in the two mismatch categories. - Time spent on reconciliation, re-checked with these interviewees.
2. Treat Calder as an account project, not a platform bet. - Work with sales to confirm the account's value and how much of its ordering would move. - Then scope onboarding of the four requested suppliers. This is bounded work that doesn't require a marketplace.
3. Don't build a marketplace next quarter. - If we want to test demand, do it cheaply. Follow up with the 17 non-Calder accounts or run a fake-door test in the app. - Revisit with that data.
Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief
- Login and access tickets: 31; ordering questions: 31.
- Show credits in the accountant export (8 tickets ask for this).
Grades and run details
Decision model 100 · LLM judge 69
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly39%
- passAddresses the actual decision95%
- passRespects explicit constraints52%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty92%
- passAvoids unsupported claims47%
- passProduces the required deliverable95%
- passSees one account behind the top ticket100%
- passCorrects the draft's claim98%
- passWeights behaviour over opinion100%
- passSays how many sources support each finding72%
- passFrames findings for the decision99%
- passReports what cuts against the plan100%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 72 s
- Submitted
- 5 Oct 2026