Write a stakeholder update

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.

Output

What a PM had to fix

1. 1Numbers wrongRedo the arithmeticTargeted repair

   Source: MetricsWeb only: −6.3%. Mobile only: −5.2%.

   What we’d changeDon't cap the navigation's effect at 1 point: web and mobile differ in more than the navigation, so the subtraction doesn't hold. Give seasonality less credit, and hold the SSO reasoning until the split is done.

2. 2Invented evidenceVerify or remove the claimQuick edit

   What we’d changeThe brief doesn't define an active team. Present it as an assumption to check, since the SSO argument depends on it.

Check by check

Got wrong · 3

• Uses the supplied evidence correctlyIt introduces an unsupported definition that a weekly active team only needs one session, which is not in the supplied context and does not follow by arithmetic.
• Avoids unsupported claimsIt presents the one-session active-definition claim as an established fact with no support.
• Owns the problemIt reports problems but does not state what the team has already done about them before recommending next steps.

Mixed · 2

• Addresses the actual decisionIt commits early that the nav is not the main cause but never states what result or condition would overturn that call.The two graders disagreed on this one.
• Identifies material uncertaintyIt names unknowns and says how to investigate but does not specify what outcomes would change the decision.The two graders disagreed on this one.

Got right · 5

• Respects explicit constraintsThe reply is under 200 words and addressed as a channel reply to Lena.
• Produces the required deliverableThe deliverable is a complete, usable channel reply within length.
• Answers the question askedThe first lines answer that the navigation is not the main cause.
• Separates effect from explanationCauses are labelled with uncertainty and paired with supporting or contradicting evidence.
• Ready for the reader as deliveredWritten for Lena with no unclear placeholders or lifted internal wording.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

• A team only needs one session in the week to count as active.