Benchmarks / DeckBench / Kestrel Logistics

Measured by Spring Prompt

Mistral Large 4: 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
515
Slides
6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
17%

Why it is not presentable

  • Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
  • Showed a number the analysis does not support
  • Made a material claim the analysis does not support
  • A slide the judges rated as needing work

In detail

  • Not supported by the analysis: slide 2: chart Network OTIF: 0.938.
  • Not supported by the analysis: slide 2: chart Network OTIF: 0.932.
  • Not supported by the analysis: slide 2: chart Network OTIF: 0.918.
  • Not supported by the analysis: slide 2: chart Network OTIF: 0.925.
  • Slide 2: “Network OTIF: W31 94.8%, W32 93.8%, W33 93.2%, W34 91.8%, W35 92.5%. These intermediate network figures are not supplied by the analysis and do not match simple averages of its depot figures.” is not supported by the analysis.
  • Slide 2: “Network OTIF chart values W32 93.8%, W33 93.2%, W34 91.8%, W35 92.5%. The analysis gives only W29 and W36. The depot average gives about 94.5%, 94.0%, 92.4% and 93.2% for those weeks, so the chart puts the network below the 93% floor earlier and lower than the data shows.” is not supported by the analysis.
  • Slide 5: “Insurer's estimate of damaged-goods claims: £280k. The analysis says this estimate is not agreed and must not be quoted.” is not supported by the analysis.
  • Slide 2: “Network OTIF data for weeks 30 to 35 (95.5%, 94.8%, 93.8%, 93.2%, 91.8%, 92.5%)” is not supported by the analysis.
  1. Slide 1 of Mistral Large 4's deck
    Slide 1Needs work The key-facts list has duplicated bullet markers on every item.Every bullet shows two markers ('• •'): the list bullet plus a typed bullet character
  2. Slide 2 of Mistral Large 4's deck
    Slide 2Needs work The contract-floor reference line is drawn near 89.5% rather than at the labelled 93%, making the visual threshold confusing.The contract-floor line sits near 89.5% on the axis, not at 93%, so it does not match its label
  3. Slide 3 of Mistral Large 4's deck
    Slide 3Needs work The title names the topic rather than stating the dominant finding shown by the chart.Bullets show two markers ('• •')
  4. Slide 4 of Mistral Large 4's deck
    Slide 4Needs work The comparison table gives both proposals equal visual emphasis; the recommended option and its cost advantage are not highlighted.Bullets in the lower box show two markers ('• •')
  5. Slide 5 of Mistral Large 4's deck
    Slide 5Acceptable The oversized content panel leaves substantial unused space below the text, making the layout top-heavy.The content fills only the top half of the box, leaving a large empty area
  6. Slide 6 of Mistral Large 4's deck
    Slide 6Acceptable The next steps use both bullets and numbering, creating redundant list markers.The next steps show both a bullet and a number ('• 1.'), which is redundant