Usable with a quick edit8 of 10 checks passed
The strategy is complete, evidence-based, and actionable; the only small gap is a numeric threshold for the final expansion gate, which is a quick edit.
Output
Tutorly: turn tutor choice into sustained bookings
12-month strategy | Board decision requested
Recommendation
Commit our one major bet to helping students find a suitable tutor and establish a recurring lesson habit. Authorise up to £1.2m in staged funding. Defer broad paid student acquisition until we demonstrate that we can reliably convert demand into repeat bookings at sustainable economics.
Why this bet
Tutor supply has grown 60%, while bookings have grown just 8%. With 70% of tutors receiving no bookings in a typical month, recruiting more supply is unlikely to unlock growth. Students identify finding the right tutor as their biggest problem. Our working hypothesis is that Tutorly offers access without enough confidence to choose.
The board’s acquisition thesis remains plausible: tutors report insufficient students. But that describes their experience, not necessarily the underlying constraint. More traffic could help, or could send more students into an ineffective matching journey.
The reported 64% repeat rate among students who book twice suggests potential value after an initial relationship forms. It does not establish retention across all students or explain losses before the second booking. We must validate its definition and measurement window.
What we will build
Start with the subject and year-group segment showing the strongest combination of existing demand, available tutors and repeat behaviour. Offer students a short intake covering learning goals, syllabus, budget and availability, followed by three suitable, available tutors with clear reasons for each recommendation.
After the first lesson, check fit, offer a straightforward rematch where needed and make recurring booking easy. Begin with manually assisted matching to learn what predicts successful relationships before automating it. Broad tutor recruitment and unrelated marketplace expansion will be deferred.
Execution and investment
In months 1–2, release £150,000 to establish the funnel from qualified enquiry through first, second and subsequent lessons, interview students who abandoned booking and run a controlled matching pilot. Audit “active” user definitions: the headline counts do not establish usable demand or supply.
In months 3–6, release a further £350,000 only if the pilot improves second completed bookings within 30 days by at least 20% relative to the existing journey, without materially increasing refunds or complaints. This is a proposed investment threshold, not a forecast; sample size and measurement rules will be agreed before testing.
In months 7–12, release the remaining £700,000 only if gains persist and contribution economics support expansion. Automate proven matching steps and extend into adjacent segments. Small paid-acquisition tests can then establish whether additional demand scales profitably.
Success and downside protection
Target 8,000 completed monthly bookings by month 121, with term-time and holiday comparisons reported separately. Track contribution after payment costs, support, incentives and matching operations alongside booking growth.
Assuming one-hour bookings, current commission revenue is only £24,000–£36,000 monthly. Doubling bookings would not itself establish sustainability. Acquisition spending must therefore recover its cost from observed contribution within six months, rather than speculative lifetime value.
If matching fails the month-six gate, stop further funding and reassess the acquisition thesis. With 18 months of runway, preserving capital when evidence disappoints is part of the strategy.
What a PM had to fix
1Test or gate too weakTighten the testQuick edit
What we’d changeGive the target a basis, a short bridge showing the conversion, booking-frequency or demand change it needs, and say exactly when the month-6 gate is judged.
Check by check
Got wrong · 1
- Proposes tests that could failThe months 7–12 gate says 'gains persist and contribution economics support expansion' without a numeric threshold or defined contribution target, so not every gate names a threshold.
Mixed · 1
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyAll current-situation facts used are from the metrics, research, scenario, or arithmetic from them, with assumptions clearly labelled.The two graders disagreed on this one.
Got right · 8
- Addresses the actual decisionIt commits early to matching quality as the one bet and says the month-six failure would stop funding and reassess acquisition.
- Respects explicit constraintsIt respects the one-bet funding constraint, 12-month horizon, CEO/board audience, and approximate 500-word length.
- Identifies material uncertaintyIt names the unproven matching hypothesis and repeat-rate measurement as uncertainties, with a numeric month-six gate to resolve them.
- Avoids unsupported claimsCausal and forward-looking statements are framed as hypotheses, possibilities, or assumptions rather than established fact.
- Produces the required deliverableIt is a complete one-page strategy for the CEO/board, with staged funding, metrics, and risk controls, usable as-is with light edits.
- Surfaces the central contradictionIt explicitly states supply grew 60% while bookings grew only 8%, and that 70% of tutors get no bookings.
- Makes a clear choiceIt chooses matching quality as the one bet and names what it forgoes: broad paid acquisition, broad tutor recruitment, and unrelated marketplace expansion.
- Diagnosis before prescriptionIt diagnoses the mismatch between abundant supply and failed matching, and the proposed actions directly target tutor choice and repeat bookings.
Grades and run details
Decision model 85 · LLM judge 10 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
- failUses the supplied evidence correctly11%
- passAddresses the actual decision100%
- passRespects explicit constraints58%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
- passAvoids unsupported claims76%
- passProduces the required deliverable71%
- passSurfaces the central contradiction100%
- passMakes a clear choice100%
- passDiagnosis before prescription100%
- partialProposes tests that could fail50%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 39 s
- Submitted
- 24 Sept 2026