Benchmarks / DeckBench / Northgate Homes

Measured by Spring Prompt

Mistral Medium 3.5: 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
649
Slides
7 (brief: 6-9)
Design quality
29%

Why it is not presentable

  • Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
  • Quoted a figure the analysis says not to quote
  • 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 6: “Greater control over service quality and response times.” is not supported by the analysis.
  • Slide 4: “Renew Contract (Indicative Price) | 0 | 3.8 — presents Brakes & Bond's £3.8m indicative price, which the analysis says must not be quoted until procurement has a formal bid, and it shows renewal as cheaper than in-house (£3.9m)” is not supported by the analysis.
  • Slide 1: text 2: #FFFFFF on #FFFFFF is 1.0:1.
  • Slide 2: text 2: #FFFFFF on #FFFFFF is 1.0:1.
  • Slide 3: text 2: #FFFFFF on #FFFFFF is 1.0:1.
  • Slide 4: text 2: #FFFFFF on #FFFFFF is 1.0:1.
  • Slide 5: text 2: #FFFFFF on #FFFFFF is 1.0:1.
  1. Slide 1 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 1Acceptable The recommendation is small and isolated at the bottom rather than prominently integrated with the decision.The decision headline is only slightly larger than the 'Board of Trustees | April 2026' line, so the eye has no clear entry point
  2. Slide 2 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 2Needs work Neither chart has a title or axis label identifying its measure and units; viewers must infer these from the bottom sentence.There is no slide title; the teal header band is empty
  3. Slide 3 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 3Needs work The charts lack titles identifying complaints and satisfaction, so their meaning is not immediately clear.There is no slide title; the header band is empty
  4. Slide 4 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 4Acceptable There is no takeaway heading explaining the key point of the cost comparison.There is no title or takeaway; the header band is empty
  5. Slide 5 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 5Acceptable The opening statement presents the chair's view more prominently than the slide's actual conclusion.There is no title; the header band is empty
  6. Slide 6 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 6Acceptable The oversized rounded panel contains substantial empty space below the text.There is no slide title; the header band is empty
  7. Slide 7 of Mistral Medium 3.5's deck
    Slide 7Needs work The orange recommendation has weak contrast against the dark teal background, reducing legibility for the most important line.The orange recommendation on the dark teal background has low contrast and will be hard to read when projected, yet it is the most important line