Usable with a quick edit10 of 13 checks passed
Yes. The deck is factually correct and the decisions are clear; a PM only needs to remove the 'not supplied' meta notes and add a short reliability follow-up line before sending.
Output
Open the deckThe file the model delivered, in a new tab
Lena, attached is Billing’s Q3 pre-read for 8 October. New ARR beat target, but the other three OKRs missed. The deck sets out the retention risks, revised launch dates and two decisions required. I recommend conditional pricing relief and retaining Growth’s engineers unless stronger evidence justifies the transfer.1
What a PM had to fix
1Decision deferredMake the callQuick edit
What we’d changeAsk the exec team for a decision on the pricing hold, not a conditional recommendation. Name real owners rather than invented ones, and take the brief's wording off the slides.
Check by check
Got wrong · 1
- Owns the problemSome material problems—especially payments reliability and the retention/activation misses—are reported without saying what the team has already done or recommending a specific forward path.
Mixed · 2
- Respects explicit constraintsContent respects the slide count, headline rule, OKR reporting and cover-note length; layout/colour constraints are checked separately as instructed.The two graders disagreed on this one.
- Ready for the reader as deliveredThe deck contains notes to the author such as 'Opening ARR and other movements were not supplied', 'The supplied incident account...', and 'Departure backfill status was not supplied' rather than being written solely for Lena.The two graders disagreed on this one.
Got right · 10
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyAll current-state facts in the deck match the supplied brief and arithmetic; no material invented facts about today.
- Addresses the actual decisionIt commits to conditional pricing relief and declining the engineer transfer, and states the verification or evidence that would change each call.
- Identifies material uncertaintyIt names the unverified account overlap and incremental benefit, the unquantified revenue/activation impact, and unresolved reliability recurrence risk, and says how to resolve the first two.
- Avoids unsupported claimsCausal claims such as pricing-driven downgrades are traceable to the supplied evidence, and forecasts are labelled as conditional forecasts rather than established fact.
- Produces the required deliverableA complete 7-slide QBR deck and a <=60-word cover note are present and usable.
- Leads with the honest headlineThe first content slide headline pairs the new-ARR beat with the three missed OKRs and retention risk, not just the record quarter.
- Makes the decisions clearThe final slide gives both decisions with their costs/benefits, an owner, and an 8 October date before Q4 renewals.
- Headlines state the takeawayEvery slide headline is a takeaway sentence (e.g., 'New ARR was the only OKR to meet its target'), not a topic label.
- A real 7-slide deck
- Uses only the brand colours
Grades and run details
Decision model 85 · LLM judge 10 of 12 checks
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly43%
- passAddresses the actual decision72%
- failRespects explicit constraints17%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty82%
- partialAvoids unsupported claims20%
- passProduces the required deliverable58%
- passLeads with the honest headline81%
- passMakes the decisions clear99%
- passHeadlines state the takeaway26%
- passA real 7-slide deckby hand100%
- passUses only the brand coloursby hand100%
- partialOwns the problem64%
- passReady for the reader as delivered37%
Artefacts
- Deck (html)
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 6.0 min
- Submitted
- 25 Sept 2026