Benchmarks / DeckBench / Hearthside Coffee

Measured by Spring Prompt

Mistral Medium 3.5: 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
649
Slides
6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
58%

Why it is not presentable

  • Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides
  1. Slide 1 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 1Acceptable Content is concentrated in the upper half, leaving substantial unused space.All content sits in the upper half and the lower half of the slide is empty, so the composition feels top-heavy.
  2. Slide 2 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 2Acceptable The title describes the topic rather than stating the adjusted-sales takeaway.The title is a topic label; a takeaway title such as 'Adjusted pop-up run-rate is the lowest of all stores' would carry the point.
  3. Slide 3 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 3Acceptable The decisive payback values and preferred option are not highlighted within the table.The title is a topic label rather than the takeaway (e.g. '£480k store fails the 36-month payback rule').
  4. Slide 4 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 4Acceptable The Leeds bar uses the same colour as its peers despite being the focus of the slide.The Leeds bar is not highlighted in an accent colour, so the chart does not point to the story.
  5. Slide 5 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 5Acceptable The small text block leaves most of the slide unused, creating an unbalanced layout.The slide is very sparse; about two-thirds of it is empty with no visual supporting the point.
  6. Slide 6 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 6Polished 'Recommendation' is a generic label; the orange headline is the real message and could serve as the title.