Gemini 3.8 Flash: 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
904
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
In detail
Slide 1: text 5: #E4572E on #1D5C63 is 2.1:1.
Slide 7: text 3: #E4572E on #1D5C63 is 2.1:1.
Slide 1AcceptableThe recommendation is visually secondary to the broad topic title and sits low on the slide.The decision and recommendation lines pack a lot of text into the bottom block of a title slide.
Slide 2AcceptableThree columns of full-sentence bullets make the summary text-heavy.The title is a topic label ('Executive Summary') rather than a takeaway.
Slide 3Polished
Slide 4AcceptableThe comparison relies on dense prose rather than a visual presentation of the evidence.The right card is text-heavy with four dense bullets.
Slide 5AcceptableThe table largely repeats the figures and explanations already shown in the two prominent cards.The table largely repeats the figures already shown in the two cards.
Slide 6AcceptableA large gap separates the financial table from the investment breakdown, weakening the connection between them.The title is a topic label; the takeaway sits only in the subtitle.
Slide 7AcceptableThe roadmap is presented as lengthy bullets rather than a concise timeline.The Phase 3 title wraps onto two lines, misaligning its date and bullets with Phases 1 and 2.
