Mistral Medium 3.5: 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

Slide 2: “All OTIF chart percentages are 100 times the source values: for example, Leeds W29 is shown as 9610.0% rather than 96.1%, and Stoke W36 as 8890.0% rather than 88.9%.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 4: “Trunk re-plan + 10 drivers for Doncaster/Stoke addresses 38% + 22% of failures.” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 4: “Trunk re-plan (new routing software) + 10 drivers for Doncaster/Stoke addresses 38% + 22% of failures” is not supported by the analysis.
Slide 2: “Leeds: W29 9610.0%” is not supported by the analysis.

Slide 1Acceptable The title names the topic rather than stating the below-contract-floor takeaway.Title slide also carries the key finding, but the finding sits as a body paragraph at the bottom with no emphasis on the headline numbers (92.9% vs 93% floor)
Slide 2Needs work The percentage axis is visibly misformatted, displaying 8800.0%–9600.0%.Y-axis labels are mis-scaled and read 9600.0%, 9400.0% etc. instead of 96%, 94%
Slide 3Acceptable Title is a topic label; the takeaway (late trunking is the biggest cause) sits in the side panel insteadTitle is a topic label rather than a takeaway message
Slide 4Acceptable The title introduces two options without stating the main comparative takeaway.Small table at the top and bullets at the bottom leave a large empty gap in the middle
Slide 5Acceptable The highlighted funding statement largely repeats the title and wraps into a long text block.Plain layout that relies heavily on text
Slide 6Acceptable Four equally weighted bullets provide no clear primary takeaway or final decision emphasis.Text-only bullet list with no emphasis on the key numbers or the decision