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

Check by check

Got wrong · 2

• Addresses the actual decisionIt commits to not attributing the drop but does not say what result would change that answer or when Lena will get it.
• Owns the problemIt recommends next steps but does not state what the team has already done about the reported problems or offer trade-offs.

Got right · 8

• Uses the supplied evidence correctlyAll named facts, figures, and quotes match the supplied context with no invented current-state information.
• Respects explicit constraintsIt is a channel reply to Lena, under 200 words, and uses the supplied material.
• Identifies material uncertaintyIt names the unknown cause, bounds navigation with beta and mobile data, and states it will compare cohorts and check SSO impact.
• Avoids unsupported claimsCausal statements are hedged as concerns or possibilities and are tied to supplied evidence.
• Produces the required deliverableThe required reply is present, complete, under 200 words, and usable as a leadership-channel update.
• Answers the question askedThe first line directly answers that the drop cannot yet be attributed to the new navigation.
• Separates effect from explanationNavigation, seasonality, and SSO are treated as possible explanations, each with supporting or contradicting evidence.
• Ready for the reader as deliveredIt is written entirely for Lena with no placeholders, unexplained terms, or invented owners or dates.