Needs more than a quick edit5 of 10 checks passed
The output contains unsupported claims about the current platform and lacks uncertainty handling and test criteria, so a PM would need to re-check evidence and add missing elements before use.
Output
Tutorly: 12-Month Growth Strategy (Board Briefing)
Executive Summary
Tutorly has reached a critical inflection point, plateauing at roughly 4,000 bookings per month. While tutor supply has surged by 60% year-on-year, demand has lagged behind, with bookings up only 8%. Consequently, 70% of our active tutors receive zero bookings in a typical month, threatening supply quality and platform retention.
With 18 months of runway and £1.2m in capital, we face a strategic choice. While the board traditionally advocates for paid student acquisition, qualitative research reveals that our primary bottleneck is not awareness, but friction in matching. Students cite “finding the right tutor” as their top hurdle, while tutors report “not enough students.” Throwing capital at top-of-funnel paid acquisition will merely leak budget into an inefficient discovery funnel.
Instead, our single major bet for the next 12 months is to re-engineer the marketplace discovery and matching engine, transforming Tutorly from a static directory into an intelligent, high-conversion matching platform.
---
The Core Problem & Diagnosis
Our core metrics tell a clear story of imbalance: * The Supply Glut: 6,500 active tutors vs. 11,000 active students, resulting in 70% of tutors experiencing zero-booking months. * The Demand Efficiency: Repeat booking is healthy at 64% for students who book twice, proving that product-market fit exists once a match is made4. The failure is entirely in initial activation and discovery.1
---
The 12-Month Strategic Bet: Intelligent Matchmaking & Activation
We will deploy our £1.2m budget across three synchronized pillars over the next 12 months to drive bookings from 4,000 to 10,000+ monthly transactions.
1. Algorithmic Matching & Guided Discovery (Months 1–4)
- Action: Shift from manual search filters to an AI-driven, intent-based matching questionnaire for incoming students. Students specify learning style, goals, budget (£30–45/hr), and schedule, and receive top-3 instant tutor recommendations.
- Investment: £400k in product engineering, UX redesign, and recommendation algorithms.
2. Supply-Side Activation & Tiered Visibility (Months 5–8)
- Action: Address the 70% zero-booking tutor rate by introducing performance-backed visibility tiers, response-time incentives, and automated profile optimization tools. Tutors who maintain high responsiveness and trial conversion rates are prioritized in the new matching engine.
- Investment: £300k in tutor success tooling, automated coaching, and CRM workflows.2
3. Targeted Demand Amplification (Months 9–12)
- Action: With conversion rates optimized, deploy the remaining £500k into targeted performance marketing and SEO. Rather than broad, leaky acquisition campaigns, we will target high-intent secondary-school parents with hyper-specific landing pages tied directly to instant matching funnels.
- Investment: £500k in performance channels, referral loops, and parent trust initiatives.
---
Financial Impact & Board Recommendation
By fixing the matching bottleneck first, we project a rise in trial-to-booking conversion rates from current lows to over 25%, lifting monthly bookings past 10,0003 and securing a sustainable, high-margin marketplace model well within our 18-month runway.
We request board approval to allocate the £1.2m capital to this intelligent matching strategy, prioritizing structural efficiency over superficial top-of-funnel spend.
What a PM had to fix
1Hypothesis stated as factReframe it as a hypothesisStart again
Source: Research
Students cite 'finding the right tutor' as their top problem. Tutors cite 'not enough students'.
What we’d changePresent matching friction as the hypothesis the research suggests, not a proven diagnosis, and stage the spending so the board learns before it commits the full £1.2m.
2Constraint missedRestore the constraintSubstantial rework
Source: Brief
We can fund one major bet.
What we’d changeCut back to one bet. Tutor tooling needs its own case when supply already far outstrips bookings.
3Invented evidenceVerify or remove the claimTargeted repair
What we’d changeRemove the forecast or show the model: no conversion baseline is given, and nothing connects 25% to 10,000 bookings.
4Hypothesis stated as factReframe it as a hypothesisQuick edit
Source: Metrics
Repeat booking rate is 64% for students who book twice.
What we’d changeA 64% repeat rate among two-time bookers suggests value after a match. It doesn't prove product-market fit.
Check by check
Got wrong · 5
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyThe output invents facts not in the supplied context, such as the platform being a 'static directory' and current conversion rates being 'low', with no supporting data.
- Addresses the actual decisionThe output commits to one bet but never states what result or condition would change that decision, as required.
- Identifies material uncertaintyNo unknowns that could change the decision are named, and no resolution methods or conditions are given.
- Avoids unsupported claimsInterpretations like 'the failure is entirely in initial activation and discovery' and 'static directory' are presented as established fact without qualification.
- Proposes tests that could failNo tests, gates, or kill criteria with numeric thresholds, measurement windows, or triggered actions are proposed.
Got right · 5
- Respects explicit constraintsThe output is a one-page strategy of about 500 words for the CEO to take to the board, and it funds one major bet.
- Produces the required deliverableThe output is a complete, actionable one-page strategy within the word limit, suitable for the CEO to present to the board.
- Surfaces the central contradictionIt clearly identifies that tutor supply grew 60% while bookings grew only 8%, surfacing the mismatch.
- Makes a clear choiceIt chooses re-engineering the matching engine as the single bet and implicitly forgoes paid acquisition as the primary strategy.
- Diagnosis before prescriptionThe crux is friction in matching, grounded in student and tutor feedback, and all three pillars directly address that crux.
Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief
- The failure is entirely in initial activation and discovery.
- The current platform is a static directory.
- Trial-to-booking conversion rates are currently low.
Grades and run details
Decision model 50 · LLM judge 5 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
- failUses the supplied evidence correctly34%
- partialAddresses the actual decision29%
- partialRespects explicit constraints30%
- failIdentifies material uncertainty84%
- failAvoids unsupported claims92%
- passProduces the required deliverable46%
- passSurfaces the central contradiction100%
- passMakes a clear choice70%
- passDiagnosis before prescription99%
- failProposes tests that could fail87%
Artefacts
- link (link)
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 48 s
- Submitted
- 24 Sept 2026