Usable with a quick edit8 of 10 checks passed
The strategy is clear and actionable; minor unsupported claims (e.g., £50 acquisition cost) can be removed or labelled as assumptions with a quick edit, without redoing the reasoning.
Output
Tutorly 12-Month Strategy: Fix Matching, Then Scale
Recommendation
Put the £1.2m behind one bet: guided matching with a first-lesson guarantee. Paid acquisition comes second, released in stages once the funnel converts.
Why not paid acquisition first
Tutor supply is up 60% and bookings only 8%, so the constraint is not volume. Seventy percent of tutors get no bookings, and students say their biggest problem is finding the right tutor. Tutors say "not enough students," but that is a symptom of poor discovery, not a shortage of demand alone.
The economics are also tight. At an average £37.50 lesson and 20% commission, we earn about £7.50 per booking. A £50 acquisition cost needs roughly seven bookings from a student just to break even. Our best evidence of retention is that 64% of students who book twice book again, but we don't yet know how many get to a second booking. Paying to send more students into a search experience they find frustrating risks buying churn.
The bet
1. Guided matching (about £600k). Replace browse-and-search with a short intake (subject, exam board, grade target, learning needs, availability, budget) that returns three ranked tutors. Add structured tutor profiles and quality signals such as response time, outcomes and reviews. Route new demand to under-booked tutors who fit well, rather than only to the top few.
2. First-lesson guarantee (about £300k). If the first lesson isn't right, the student is rematched and the lesson is free, funded by us. This targets the drop-off before the second booking, which is where the strong repeat behaviour begins.
3. Supply curation (about £100k). Stop passive tutor onboarding. Admit tutors by subject-level demand, and give inactive tutors coaching or profile support, or deprioritise them.
4. Gated acquisition reserve (£200k). Held back and released only when the gates below are met.
Gates for releasing acquisition spend
Two consecutive months of: - first-to-second booking conversion up at least 10 points from baseline; - median time to first booking under 48 hours; - modelled payback on acquisition inside 6 months.
Until then, test small paid channels only to measure cost per matched student.
Targets (month 12)
- Bookings: 4,000 → 6,000+ per month
- Tutors with at least one booking a month: 30% → 50%
- Students reaching a second booking: +10 points
- Student satisfaction after first lesson: tracked from launch
Timeline
- Months 1–2: Instrument the funnel (search → enquiry → first lesson → second lesson). Establish the baseline. Interview 30 students and 30 tutors.
- Months 3–6: Launch matching to one or two high-demand subjects, such as GCSE maths and sciences. Run against a control group.
- Months 7–9: Roll out across all subjects, and launch the guarantee if the pilot shows it pays back.
- Months 10–12: Release acquisition spend if the gates are met. Report to the board.
Risks
- Matching doesn't lift conversion. Pilots with control groups will show this by month 6, leaving 12 months of runway to change course.
- Guarantee costs exceed benefit. We cap exposure per student and monitor abuse.
- Tutor churn from curation. We prioritise communication and coaching before any deprioritisation.
Ask of the board
Approve the matching bet and the staged acquisition gate. If the board is not willing to defer scaled paid acquisition, the fallback is a capped £150k test with cost per second booking as the success measure.
Check by check
Got wrong · 2
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyOutput states that students find the search experience frustrating, that we don't know how many get to a second booking, and implies a £50 acquisition cost, none of which are in the supplied context.
- Avoids unsupported claimsPresents 'search experience they find frustrating' and a £50 acquisition cost as facts without support, and states 'we don't yet know how many get to a second booking' as if known.
Got right · 8
- Addresses the actual decisionCommits to guided matching with first-lesson guarantee as the one bet, defers paid acquisition, and provides a fallback if the board disagrees.
- Respects explicit constraintsRespects the one-major-bet constraint, delivers a one-page strategy of about 500 words for the CEO to take to the board.
- Identifies material uncertaintyNames risks (matching not lifting conversion, guarantee costs, tutor churn) and sets gates with numeric thresholds and a fallback plan.
- Produces the required deliverableDelivers a complete one-page strategy with recommendation, rationale, plan, timeline, risks, and ask, usable by the CEO.
- Surfaces the central contradictionHighlights that supply is up 60% but bookings only 8% and 70% of tutors get no bookings, surfacing the matching failure.
- Makes a clear choiceChooses matching as the one bet and explicitly forgoes immediate paid acquisition, naming what is sacrificed.
- Diagnosis before prescriptionDiagnoses poor discovery as the crux, and each major action (guided matching, guarantee, curation) directly addresses it.
- Proposes tests that could failGates have numeric thresholds (10-point conversion lift, under 48 hours, 6-month payback), measurement windows (two consecutive months, by month 6), and actions (release spend or change course).
Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief
- we don't yet know how many get to a second booking
- search experience they find frustrating
- A £50 acquisition cost
Grades and run details
Decision model 75 · LLM judge 9 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
- failUses the supplied evidence correctly12%
- passAddresses the actual decision100%
- passRespects explicit constraints27%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
- failAvoids unsupported claims14%
- passProduces the required deliverable78%
- passSurfaces the central contradiction100%
- passMakes a clear choice99%
- passDiagnosis before prescription100%
- partialProposes tests that could fail62%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 20 s
- Submitted
- 29 Sept 2026