DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: On-time delivery: what is going wrong and what to fund

For the board and the company's three main investors. The decision it supports: whether to fund 40 more drivers or a trunk re-plan with 10 drivers.

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

Slide 6: “Damaged-goods claims: £280k. The deck quotes the insurer's estimate despite the analysis's explicit instruction that it must not be quoted.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 6: “Damaged-goods claims £280k — Insurer's estimate for the period” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 2: 3 body text boxes set at 11 pt, too small to read
Slide 2: 3 body text boxes set at 10 pt, too small to read

Slide 1Download slide imagePolished
Slide 2Download slide imageAcceptable No top-level headline establishes the takeaway; the recommendation appears only in the bottom banner.No slide title; the KPI cards sit under an empty top band and compete with the recommendation box for attention
Slide 3Download slide imageAcceptable Several depot lines use similar grey tones, making series identification through the legend slower.The 93% contract floor, the key reference in the title, is not drawn as a line on the chart
Slide 4Download slide imagePolished The late-trunking bar is not highlighted in the accent colour, so the chart itself doesn't carry the emphasis
Slide 5Download slide imageAcceptable The table and lower comparison cards repeat much of the same information.The table and the two cards repeat the same information
Slide 6Download slide imageAcceptable The headline introduces a topic rather than stating the overarching caution.Title is a topic label rather than a takeaway
Slide 7Download slide imagePolished The bold governance heading in the orange band competes with the title, while the actual approval ask is demoted to small subtext