Needs more than a quick edit9 of 13 checks passed
The refund figures are inaccurate, so a PM would need to re-check the data and recalculate before using the recommendation. The output is not usable as-is.
Output
Recommendation: No-go for the all-region rollout on 2 November
Do not enable auto-substitutions anywhere on 2 November: the dietary hard filter is not scheduled to deploy until 4 November, so the zero-mismatch safety criterion is not yet protected. After deployment and validation, North West is the only region I’d consider enabling first, with conditions. Hold the other regions for the reasons below.
Figures are for 1–28 October; refund rates are per 1,000 orders. Basket averages are order-weighted within each region. I excluded the three exact duplicate North West treatment rows on 8, 9 and 10 October.
| Region | Treatment acceptance (≥80%) | Refunds / 1,000 orders: treatment vs control (treatment ≤10% higher) | Dietary/allergen mismatches (must be zero) | Average basket: treatment vs control (must not be lower) | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- |
| London | ~86% Pass | ~17.9 vs ~18.4; Pass | 1; Fail — nut-containing bar substituted for nut-free item | ~£72.8 vs ~£72.5; Pass | No-go |
| South East | ~85% Pass | ~17.8 vs ~17.9; Pass | 1; Fail — dairy cheese substituted for vegan cheese | ~£66.6 vs ~£66.3; Pass | No-go |
| Midlands | ~86% Pass | ~17.6 vs ~18.0; Pass | 1; Fail — standard loaf substituted for gluten-free loaf | ~£55.6 vs ~£55.4; Pass | No-go |
| North West | ~86% Pass | ~17.8 vs ~18.8; Pass | 0 observed; Pass in test | ~£57.5 vs ~£57.3; Pass | Go with conditions, after filter validation |
| Scotland | ~79% Fail1 | ~29.8 vs ~18.4; Fail — about 62% higher | 0 observed; Pass in test | ~£53.0 vs ~£52.6; Pass | No-go |
Conditions and rationale
- North West: After the hard filter deploys, pass regression tests across all six protected attributes (gluten-free, vegan, vegetarian, nut-free, halal and kosher); then enable regionally with close monitoring and a rollback switch. The export duplicates should also be fixed or guarded against before relying on daily reporting.
- London, South East and Midlands: Do not launch until the filter is deployed and the dietary-mismatch failures are investigated and validated as fixed. Their good acceptance, refund and basket figures do not offset a safety-criterion failure.
- Scotland: Hold until the supplier catalogue re-map is complete and verified, and a fresh test meets both acceptance and refund guardrails. The sharp rise in treatment refunds and lower acceptance coincide with the dairy supplier/catalogue change; the issue is open, with no completion date.
The pooled “£4 smaller” basket claim should not drive this decision: treatment exposure differed by region, and baskets vary substantially by region. Within each region, the treatment average is slightly higher in these data. Likewise, an overall acceptance or refund result cannot override region-level launch gates. The 9 November booking window is important, but it does not justify launching before the safety control is live.
What a PM had to fix
1Invented evidenceVerify or remove the claimTargeted repair
What we’d change82.76%: Pass over 1–28 October. However, acceptance fell to 79.08% over 15–28 October after the supplier change, below the launch threshold.
Check by check
Got wrong · 2
- Limits the downside of being wrongDoes not name a specific post-launch signal, threshold, or trigger for rollback; only says 'close monitoring and a rollback switch' without specifics.
- Gets the base of every number rightMultiple refund-per-1000 figures are miscalculated (e.g., London treatment 17.9 vs 17.4, London control 18.4 vs 18.0), so the base numbers are wrong.
Mixed · 2
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlySeveral refund-per-1000 figures are incorrect (e.g., London treatment 17.9 vs actual 17.4, London control 18.4 vs 18.0), so the output does not use the supplied evidence correctly.The two graders disagreed on this one.
- Checks every criterion, region by regionThe table checks each criterion per region but the refund figures are incorrect, so it does not present correct figures from the files.The two graders disagreed on this one.
Got right · 9
- Addresses the actual decisionCommits to a clear no-go for all-region on 2 Nov, then conditional go for North West after filter, with conditions and what would change it.
- Respects explicit constraintsIncludes the required region-by-region table, prose under 900 words, and addresses the launch meeting.
- Identifies material uncertaintyNames the filter deployment, duplicate fix, and Scotland catalogue re-map as unknowns that could change the decision.
- Avoids unsupported claimsCausal claims like the supplier change coinciding with refunds are presented as observations, not unsupported facts.
- Produces the required deliverableProvides a complete recommendation with table, region-by-region, usable for the meeting.
- Finds the Scotland breachIdentifies Scotland's refund breach, ties it to the supplier change, notes acceptance dip, and holds Scotland.
- Explains the basket gapExplains the pooled basket gap as a mix effect, noting treatment baskets are equal or higher within each region.
- Catches the duplicate rowsCatches the duplicate North West rows, excludes them, and recommends fixing the export job.
- Makes a clear callMakes a clear call per region with dates and conditions, and says what would change it.
Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief
- London treatment refunds per 1,000 orders is ~17.9.
- London control refunds per 1,000 orders is ~18.4.
- South East treatment refunds per 1,000 orders is ~17.8.
- Midlands treatment refunds per 1,000 orders is ~17.6.
- North West treatment refunds per 1,000 orders is ~17.8 (after excluding duplicates).
- Scotland control refunds per 1,000 orders is ~18.4.
Grades and run details
Decision model 77 · LLM judge 9 of 14 checks
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly26%
- passAddresses the actual decision46%
- passRespects explicit constraints61%
- partialIdentifies material uncertainty46%
- passAvoids unsupported claims39%
- passProduces the required deliverable64%
- passChecks every criterion, region by region31%
- passFinds the Scotland breach91%
- passExplains the basket gap84%
- partialCatches the duplicate rows59%
- partialMakes a clear call70%
- partialLimits the downside of being wrong97%
- failGets the base of every number right31%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 44 s
- Submitted
- 29 Sept 2026