Usable with a quick edit11 of 12 checks passed
The only flaw is an off-by-one error in two ticket counts (31 vs 30), which can be fixed in a quick edit without re-checking the core reasoning or evidence.
Output
Synthesis: what customers are telling us
Headline: Our biggest problem is that customers can't easily check what arrived against what they were invoiced. A supplier marketplace is a real but narrow request, concentrated in one large account. I don't recommend building it next quarter.
Sources: 10 owner and manager interviews (September) and 200 support tickets from last quarter (LT-5000 to LT-5199).
What changed from the draft: "Top category by far" holds only because of one account. "Most customers we spoke to want a marketplace" is 2 of 10, and one of those is hedged. The recommendation doesn't follow from the evidence.
Findings
1. Checking deliveries and reconciling invoices is the main pain. Evidence: strong. - 63 of 200 tickets (32%) are "delivery didn't match order" or "invoice reconciliation." The most common issues are short deliveries not shown in the app, missing credit notes, invoices including items not delivered, invoices that can't be matched to orders, and accountant exports that omit credits. - These tickets come from many different accounts, not one. - 8 of 10 interviews describe this problem. A gastropub lost about £600 in a month paying for unchecked deliveries. A hotel finance team chases credit notes weekly. A bakery is in a "my word against theirs" dispute with a supplier. A noodle bar re-types clipboard checks into the app. - Caveats: ticket categories are assigned by support staff, and 10 interviews is a small sample.
2. Supplier demand is concentrated in one account. Evidence: strong for Calder Group, weak as a base-wide signal. - "Add more suppliers" is the largest ticket category (75 tickets), but 58 come from Calder Group (14 sites). Outside Calder it is 17 tickets, fewer than delivery issues (34) or ordering issues (31). - Calder's requests repeat four named suppliers: Brakes (15 tickets), meat (15), dairy (14), and a wine merchant (14). These are four specific onboarding requests, not a general need for a marketplace. - Outside Calder, requests are vague ("any plans for more suppliers?", "would like more produce suppliers"), spread across accounts. - In interviews, 2 of 10 want more suppliers: the pizzeria and Calder. A tapas bar says it would use a marketplace "I suppose," but says the paperwork is what hurts day to day. A café group says finding suppliers "isn't the problem. Knowing what actually arrived is."
3. Calder Group is a high-value but conditional signal. Evidence: one account, one conversation. - Calder says: "If you had a marketplace, we'd move all our ordering to you." That is the strongest commercial statement in the material, but it is one customer's conditional view, and it depends on four specific suppliers. - We don't know from these materials how much ordering volume or revenue Calder represents.
4. Ordering and login tickets are routine. Evidence: moderate, low priority. - Ordering (31) and login (31) tickets are mostly specific fixes: cut-off times, duplicate orders, delivery-day changes, tablet login problems, password resets, adding users. None of these came up in interviews.
What this means for next quarter
Build: a receiving and invoice-matching workflow. This addresses the largest and most widely shared problem. - Let staff record received quantities at delivery, with shorts and substitutions flagged in the app. This covers the short-delivery tickets and "how do I record a substitution?" - Automatically match invoices to deliveries and orders, and flag differences before payment. This covers "can't match," "total differs," and "includes items not delivered." - Show credit notes against deliveries and in the accountant export. Fixing the export that omits credits could ship early as a quick win. - Measures: the 63-ticket category volume, and credit value recovered per account, which we can ask customers to report.
Don't build the marketplace next quarter. Instead: - Talk to Calder Group about their ordering volume and what they'd need to move everything to us. Check whether onboarding Brakes, their meat supplier, dairy, and the wine merchant is feasible as partnership or integration work. That is a much smaller decision than building a platform. - Add a "request a supplier" flow so demand from the wider base is captured in a structured way. Then we can see whether requests extend beyond Calder. - Triage the ordering and login tickets into the backlog as small fixes.
What would change my view
- A clear rise in supplier requests from accounts other than Calder.
- Around 20 more interviews, across account sizes and including some churned customers, where supplier access is named as the blocker.
- Evidence that Calder's ordering value justifies the integrations, or that a marketplace would win or retain several accounts of Calder's scale.
Until then, the evidence supports fixing receiving and reconciliation first, and treating the supplier question as a targeted account decision rather than a platform bet.
Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief
- Outside Calder, supplier requests are 17 tickets, fewer than delivery issues (34) or ordering issues (31).
- Ordering (31) and login (31) tickets are routine fixes; none appeared in interviews.
Grades and run details
Decision model 100 · LLM judge 92
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly51%
- passAddresses the actual decision100%
- passRespects explicit constraints64%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
- passAvoids unsupported claims69%
- passProduces the required deliverable98%
- passSees one account behind the top ticket100%
- passCorrects the draft's claim100%
- passWeights behaviour over opinion100%
- passSays how many sources support each finding82%
- passFrames findings for the decision97%
- passReports what cuts against the plan100%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 34 s
- Submitted
- 8 Oct 2026