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 · 4

• Addresses the actual decisionIt commits to 'partly, but navigation probably isn't the main driver' but never states what result or condition would change that call, only lists analyses.
• Identifies material uncertaintyIt names analyses to run but does not identify the specific results that would change the call, and the SSO impact is asserted rather than treated as unknown.
• Avoids unsupported claimsIt presents 'Most would have come back later in the week' and 'small next to about 1,100 lost teams' as fact without support.
• Owns the problemIt reports support-ticket friction and SSO outage but does not say what the team has already done, only future fixes and analyses.

Mixed · 1

• Uses the supplied evidence correctlyThe SSO recovery claim ('Most would have come back later in the week') is not in the brief or derivable from it, so not all current-situation statements are supported.The two graders disagreed on this one.

Got right · 5

• Respects explicit constraintsAt about 180 words and addressed to Lena in channel-reply form, it respects the length and reader constraints.
• Produces the required deliverableThe reply is complete and usable as a channel update, with an answer, evidence, and next steps.
• Answers the question askedIt answers in the first line that navigation is partly responsible but probably not the main driver.
• Separates effect from explanationSeasonality, navigation, support friction, and SSO are each labelled as hypotheses with supporting or contradicting evidence.
• Ready for the reader as deliveredWritten for Lena, no placeholders, and names and dates are from the material or clearly proposed.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

• Most SSO-affected teams would have come back later in the week.
• Navigation support-ticket friction is small next to about 1,100 lost teams.