DeepSeek V4 Pro 0423: Responsive repairs: in-house team or renewed contract
For the board of trustees of a housing association, including two tenant board members. The decision it supports: whether to approve £1.2m to set up an in-house repairs team or renew the contract.
Verdict
Not presentable
Deck rating
615
Slides
7 (brief: 6-9)
Design quality
64%
Why it is not presentable
Quoted a figure the analysis says not to quote
Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides
Made a material claim the analysis does not support
A slide the judges rated as needing work
In detail
Slide 4 quotes 3.8: Brakes & Bond's indicative price of £3.8m a year.
Slide 7: “An in-house team will provide better service for tenants.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 7: “better service for tenants” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 1PolishedThe layout is top-heavy, with a large unused area beneath the subtitle.
Slide 2Polished
Slide 3AcceptableThe reported-repairs series is light grey and has weak contrast against the white background.Caption is a three-line paragraph that is text-heavy
Slide 4AcceptableThe generic title does not communicate the savings takeaway.Topic-label title 'Cost comparison' where the takeaway line would serve better
Slide 5PolishedIn the left card, 'Down from 93% last year' is tacked on after the caveat in smaller text, which breaks the card's hierarchy and makes it inconsistent with the right card's comparison line
Slide 6AcceptableBoth comparison panels have substantial unused space below their content.Topic-label title where a takeaway would serve better
Slide 7Needs workBroken replacement glyphs appear in 'in-house' and '12-month' within the main recommendation; these must be corrected before presenting.Missing-glyph boxes render in 'in?house' and '12?month' in the main recommendation text (an unsupported hyphen character)
