Muse Spark 1.3: 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.
Verdict
Not presentable
Deck rating
811
Slides
6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
50%
Why it is not presentable
Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides
A slide the judges rated as needing work
In detail
Slide 1: text 6: 8 pt text.
Slide 2: text 5: 10 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 5: 10 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 8: 10 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 8: 10 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 10: 10 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 10: 11 pt body text.
Slide 2: text 12: 8 pt text.
Slide 1AcceptableThe title wraps awkwardly, leaving 'fund' alone on the second line.Title wraps and leaves the single word 'fund' orphaned on the second line
Slide 2PolishedThird card is left-aligned text with no hero number, while the first two cards are centred big numbers; the row reads inconsistently
Slide 3AcceptableSeveral depot series use similar greys, making them harder to distinguish through the legend.Five grey-toned lines are hard to tell apart from one another
Slide 4AcceptableThe explanatory panel contains a compact block of text at the top and a large unused area below.All bars are the same colour; the late trunking bar (and the driver shortage bar it is compared against) are not highlighted
Slide 5AcceptableThe table and chart repeat the same cost figures without adding much visual information.Large empty gap between the table and the bullets; the left column feels disconnected
Slide 6Needs workThe first two list markers render as boxed question-mark glyphs and need to be replaced.Bullet icons render as missing-glyph boxes before the first two lines
