Write a stakeholder update
Can the model turn messy project status into an honest update that leads with what the reader needs to know or decide?
The PM job
Writing the weekly update, or the reply to an executive's question, that the team's credibility rests on.
Why it matters
Updates are where bad news gets softened. A fluent update that buries a slipped date or presents a guess as the cause does more harm than no update: leadership decides on it, and trust goes when the truth comes out.
What good looks like
- Leads with the news and any decision needed
- States dates, numbers and causes plainly, including bad news
- Separates what is known from what is suspected
- Fits the reader and the length asked for
Deliberately not measured
- Tone and formatting preferences
- Writing style beyond clarity
Honest, decision-first status communication
Spin: burying or softening the bad news, or presenting a guess as fact
Decision model, LLM judge and blind PM review
Results
Every setup we’ve tested on this task, across all cases and repeats.
| # | Model · Harness | Task score | Decision model | LLM judge | PM review | Runs | Critical failures | Cost / run | Latency |
|---|
Case viewer
Read the brief, then put up to three outputs side by side. The outputs are the point; the scores just tell you where to look.
Our CEO, Lena, posted in the leadership channel: “Why did weekly active teams drop 6% last week? Is it the new navigation?” You own the product area. Using the material below, write your reply to Lena, to post in the channel. Keep it under 200 words.
Answers directly that the cause is not established and the navigation is unlikely to be the main driver (mobile, which did not change, fell nearly as much, and the beta cohort barely moved), while taking the navigation support tickets seriously. Names the other candidates with their evidence (seasonality, the SSO outage), says what is being checked and when Lena will hear back.
- States a single cause as established fact
v1.1 · synthetic · metrics, exec communication