Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 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: 644
Slides: 7 (brief: 6-9)
Design quality: 57%

Why it is not presentable

Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
Made a material claim the analysis does not support

In detail

Slide 2: “Indicative price of £3.8m given: the deck quotes this price despite the analysis explicitly prohibiting quotation until procurement has a formal bid.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 5: “The rise in complaints directly reflects the frustration of lengthening wait times and growing backlog.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 7: “Avoids a full 5-year contract renewal.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 7: “In-house team secures long-term service quality and direct accountability to tenants” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 7: “Avoids a full 5-year contract renewal” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 1: text 2: #E4572E on #1D5C63 is 2.1:1.

Slide 1Polished
Slide 2Acceptable Large empty areas beneath the text make both panels taller than necessary.Topic label title ('The Decision We Face') where a takeaway title would serve better
Slide 3Acceptable The chart uses hundreds and decimal tick labels, requiring viewers to convert values to match the repair counts in the commentary.Chart is a default plot whose styling (thin black frame, small axis labels, small chart title) does not match the deck
Slide 4Acceptable The topic title does not state the conclusion; viewers must read the introduction and both panels to grasp the main point.Topic label title; the real takeaway (the backlog is not mainly down to the system change) sits in the intro sentence instead
Slide 5Acceptable The topic title does not explain the relationship between the satisfaction result and rising complaints.Topic label title rather than a takeaway
Slide 6Acceptable A large vertical gap separates the table from its explanation, weakening their visual connection.Topic label title; the payback takeaway would work better as the title
Slide 7Acceptable The long second recommendation wraps across the slide and is less quickly scannable than the first.Content is packed into the top half, leaving the bottom half empty