Write a stakeholder update

Output

What a PM had to fix

1. 1Decision deferredMake the callQuick edit

   Source: MetricsMobile only: −5.2%.

   What we’d changeAnswer Lena's question more directly: mobile's 5.2% drop with no navigation change points away from the navigation as the main cause. Tighten the SSO hedge.

Check by check

Got wrong · 1

• Owns the problemIt owns the problem and recommends next steps, but does not state what the team has already done about the drop or ticket spike, and the recommendations lack explicit trade-offs.

Got right · 9

• Uses the supplied evidence correctlyAll stated facts and figures come directly from the supplied context or follow by arithmetic, with no invented current-situation claims.
• Addresses the actual decisionIt commits clearly to 'navigation may be contributing but we don't yet know how much' and says evidence of navigation blocking core work would change the rollback decision.
• Respects explicit constraintsIt is addressed to Lena, written as a channel reply, and is 189 words, under the 200-word limit.
• Identifies material uncertaintyIt names the key unknowns—navigation contribution, broader factor, seasonality, SSO impact, beta selection—and says daily activity split by platform, SSO and beta will resolve them.
• Avoids unsupported claimsHypotheses are labelled with 'may,' 'likely,' 'plausible,' 'candidate,' and 'could,' and no unlabelled cause is asserted as fact.
• Produces the required deliverableThe requested reply is present and complete, under the word limit, and usable by Lena as a channel update.
• Answers the question askedThe first lines directly answer whether the new navigation caused the drop by saying it may be contributing but the amount is not yet known.
• Separates effect from explanationNavigation, seasonality, SSO outage, and beta learnings are each treated as possible explanations with their supporting or contradicting evidence.
• Ready for the reader as deliveredIt is written entirely for Lena with no unexplained brief terms, placeholders, or invented owners or dates.

Output

What a PM had to fix

1. 1Hypothesis stated as factReframe it as a hypothesisStart again

   Source: MetricsMobile only: −5.2%.

   What we’d changeLead with the strongest comparison: mobile fell 5.2% with no navigation change, so the navigation isn't established as a cause. Say what you'll check and when.

2. 2Invented evidenceVerify or remove the claimSubstantial rework

   Source: IncidentAbout 30% of teams use single sign-on.

   What we’d change30% of teams use SSO. That doesn't mean all of them were trying to get in during those two hours.

3. 3Hypothesis stated as factReframe it as a hypothesisQuick edit

   What we’d changeBeta teams may differ from everyone else. Their small drop doesn't show a manageable learning curve.

4. 4Hypothesis stated as factReframe it as a hypothesisQuick edit

   Source: Metricswhich we put down to the start of the school year.

   What we’d changeLast year's cause was an attribution, not a finding. Say 'which we put down to'.

Check by check

Got wrong · 6

• Uses the supplied evidence correctlyIt introduces causal statements such as 'directly impacting mid-week engagement' and 'new navigation is a factor' that are not in the supplied context or derivable by arithmetic.
• Addresses the actual decisionIt does not say what result or condition would change the answer; it only says it will monitor and share a breakdown.
• Identifies material uncertaintyIt does not name the specific unknowns that could change the decision or tie the monitoring to what would settle the call.
• Avoids unsupported claimsIt presents causal interpretations such as the SSO outage directly impacting engagement and navigation being a factor as established fact, though the evidence only suggests them.
• Separates effect from explanationIt lists SSO outage, navigation friction, and seasonality as 'what happened' rather than clearly labelling them as hypotheses with supporting or contradicting evidence.
• Owns the problemIt reports the SSO outage but does not say what the team has already done about it or recommend a way forward for that specific problem.

Got right · 4

• Respects explicit constraintsIt is a channel reply addressed to Lena and is under 200 words.
• Produces the required deliverableThe reply is in the right channel format, addressed to Lena, under 200 words, and usable as a status update.
• Answers the question askedThe first lines answer the question by saying the new navigation is a factor but not the whole story.
• Ready for the reader as deliveredIt is written for Lena, uses no placeholders, and all dates and owners are taken from the material or clearly proposed.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

• The new navigation is a factor, though not the whole story.
• The SSO outage directly impacted mid-week engagement.
• This suggests the learning curve is real but manageable once users adjust.