Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: Library services: choosing how to save £350,000
For the council's cabinet (elected members), meeting in public. The decision it supports: which of three options to adopt to save £350,000 a year from libraries.
Verdict
Not presentable
Deck rating
644
Slides
6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality
58%
Why it is not presentable
Quoted a figure the analysis says not to quote
Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides
Drew a conclusion from a figure without its caveat
In detail
Slide 4 quotes 6,300: the unverified 6,300-signature petition.
Caveat missing: respondents were mostly weekly users (82%, against 21% of card holders), not representative of residents.
Slide 1PolishedThe subtitle has low contrast against the purple background, making the central savings message too faint for reliable public-meeting projection.
Slide 2AcceptableThe title names a topic rather than stating the decision required.Topic-label title ('The Decision & Context') rather than a takeaway title
Slide 3AcceptableThe main conclusion is buried in a three-line takeaway paragraph rather than expressed in the title.Topic-label title; the takeaway (Option B meets the target with the least opposition) is buried in a paragraph at the bottom
Slide 4AcceptableThe topic title does not communicate the principal takeaway.Topic-label title with no stated takeaway
Slide 5AcceptableThe three options have identical visual treatment, with no emphasis on the overall assessment or preferred option.Content fills only the top ~40% of the three tall cards, leaving large empty space below
Slide 6AcceptableThe recommendation is clear, but its supporting points remain long prose bullets rather than visually distinct commitments.Generic 'Recommendation' title; 'Adopt Option B' could itself be the title
