Usable with a quick edit8 of 13 checks passed
The evidence and structure are sound, and only minor edits are needed to remove author-facing notes and add brief action bullets for the reported misses.
Output
Open the deckThe file the model delivered, in a new tab
Lena — the Billing Q3 pre-read is below for 7 October, ahead of the 8 October QBR. It leads with the ARR beat while making the three OKR misses explicit, uses Finance’s NRR, and closes with two decisions on pricing protection and engineering capacity. Proposed owners and decision dates are included.
Check by check
Got wrong · 2
- Addresses the actual decisionIt lays out the two decisions as options with trade-offs but does not commit to a recommended answer or state what would change the answer.
- Owns the problemIt reports activation, NPS, and reliability misses without saying what the team has already done or recommending a way forward; only pricing and bulk invoicing have clear options.
Mixed · 3
- Respects explicit constraintsIt respects the content constraints: at most 7 slides, takeaway headlines, honest OKR reporting including misses, decisions with owners/dates, brand-only colours, and self-contained HTML.The two graders disagreed on this one.
- Uses only the brand coloursThe two graders disagreed on this one.
- Ready for the reader as deliveredIt includes internal notes to the deck author such as "Use Finance's figure, not CS's 102%" and "Do not use CS's 102% NRR" that are not suitable for Lena or the exec audience.The two graders disagreed on this one.
Got right · 8
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyAll current-situation figures and quotes are taken correctly from the supplied context or derived by arithmetic, with no invented facts.
- Identifies material uncertaintyIt names key unknowns such as whether legacy pricing will protect the $900k at risk and whether the 23 October bulk invoicing date is achievable, and labels the outcomes as conditional or uncertain.
- Avoids unsupported claimsInterpretations and forecasts are labelled as reported, conditional, or uncertain rather than presented as established fact.
- Produces the required deliverableThe deck is complete, usable, and ends with the two required decisions, each with trade-offs, owner, and date.
- Leads with the honest headlineThe first content slide headline includes the NRR miss and activation/reliability misses alongside the new-ARR beat, so it does not open with the record-quarter headline alone.
- Makes the decisions clearBoth decisions are clear, include cost/benefit trade-offs, and have an owner and 8 October decision date.
- Headlines state the takeawayEvery slide headline states a takeaway sentence rather than a topic label.
- A real 7-slide deck
Grades and run details
Decision model 65 · LLM judge 9 of 12 checks
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly60%
- failAddresses the actual decision86%
- failRespects explicit constraints13%
- partialIdentifies material uncertainty70%
- passAvoids unsupported claims47%
- partialProduces the required deliverable9%
- passLeads with the honest headline88%
- passMakes the decisions clear89%
- partialHeadlines state the takeaway25%
- passA real 7-slide deckby hand100%
- partialUses only the brand coloursby hand100%
- partialOwns the problem75%
- passReady for the reader as delivered15%
Artefacts
- Deck (html)
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 1.6 min
- Submitted
- 29 Sept 2026