Benchmarks / DeckBench / Hearthside Coffee

Measured by Spring Prompt

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: Manchester store investment review

For the board of directors (non-executives and the chief executive). The decision it supports: whether to approve £480k of capital for a Manchester store.

Verdict
Not presentable
Deck rating
644
Slides
4 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
62%

Why it is not presentable

  • Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
  • Quoted a figure the analysis says not to quote
  • Left out a key finding
  • Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides

In detail

  • Slide 2 quotes 14,200: the landlord's unverified footfall figure of 14,200 people a day.
  • 4 slides; the brief allows 5-8.
  • Finding missing: Leeds' weak profit is a staffing problem (74% staff turnover, £96k of agency cover), not its location.
  1. Slide 1 of Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's deck
    Slide 1Polished
  2. Slide 2 of Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's deck
    Slide 2Acceptable The title introduces two topics rather than stating the key relationship between the proposed 34-month payback and the 36-month requirement.The title names the topic ('The Proposal & The Board's Rule') rather than stating the takeaway, for example that the base case scrapes under the 36-month limit.
  3. Slide 3 of Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's deck
    Slide 3Acceptable The topic-style title does not state the central takeaway that the adjusted sales run-rate falls below the business-case assumption.The title is a topic label; a takeaway such as 'Normalised run-rate is ~£2,380/day, below the £2,917 assumed' would carry the message.
  4. Slide 4 of Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's deck
    Slide 4Acceptable The title describes an evaluation rather than stating which option meets the payback requirement.The title is descriptive rather than stating the conclusion (for example, that only the smaller unit passes the 36-month rule).