Gemini 3.8 Flash: 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: 904
Slides: 6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality: 75%

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

In detail

Slide 2 quotes 14,200: the landlord's unverified footfall figure of 14,200 people a day.
Slide 1: text 4: 11 pt body text.
Slide 1: text 6: 11 pt body text.
Slide 1: text 8: 11 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 4: 11 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 7: 11 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 7: 11 pt body text.
Slide 4: text 5: 11 pt body text.

Slide 1Polished Main title is a topic label ('Capital Allocation Decision: Tib Street, Manchester'); the decision itself lives only in the card headings
Slide 2Acceptable The title describes the analysis rather than stating the key takeaway from the adjustment.Left card has a large empty area in its lower third
Slide 3Acceptable The decisive payback values and pass/fail results are not visually highlighted in the table.Table headers and Board Rule cells wrap awkwardly ('Board Rule (≤ 36 Mos)', 'FAILS (+6 months)')
Slide 4Polished
Slide 5Acceptable The title is a topic label, and the three takeaway cards have equal emphasis rather than establishing one main conclusion.Title is a topic label rather than a takeaway
Slide 6Polished Cards are bottom-heavy with large empty space under the text