Benchmarks / DeckBench / Pantry Lane

Measured by Spring Prompt

Mistral Medium 3.5: Paid media: H1 2026 allocation

For the CMO and the finance director. The decision it supports: how to allocate the £2.4m paid media budget for H1 2026.

Verdict
Not presentable
Deck rating
649
Slides
6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
50%

Why it is not presentable

  • Quoted a figure the analysis says not to quote

In detail

  • Slide 4 quotes 15,000: the agency's unvalidated forecast of 15,000 new TikTok customers.
  1. Slide 1 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 1Acceptable The title names the topic rather than stating the budget-reallocation recommendation.The £2.4m budget appears twice, in the subtitle and in the second bullet.
  2. Slide 2 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 2Acceptable The key takeaway is relegated to a small grey footer instead of the title.The title is a topic label; the takeaway (CRM leads, display underperforms) sits in a small grey caption at the bottom.
  3. Slide 3 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 3Acceptable The content occupies a shallow band near the top, leaving the lower half largely unused.The table is small, with only two data rows, and the near-identical figures (18.2 vs 17.9) are not visually emphasised.
  4. Slide 4 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 4Acceptable The question-form title and equally weighted sections leave the main takeaway implicit.The question-style title leaves the main point ambiguous.
  5. Slide 5 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 5Acceptable The title identifies the allocation topic but does not state the main shift in spending.The title is a topic label; a takeaway title (e.g. shifting spend from display to search and CRM) would serve better.
  6. Slide 6 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 6Acceptable Using both bullet dots and numbers creates redundant list markers.Each point has both a bullet marker and a number ('• 1.').