{"id":"fpa-second-office-scenario-decision","audience":"executives","category":"finance-work","track":"finance","level":"advanced","technique":"constraints","title":"Draft a scenario decision page for a second sales office","free":false,"task":"You're the COO preparing a decision line for the CEO on opening a second sales office. Write one line each for Base, Upside and Downside showing year-1 revenue − cost = profit and its probability, then a Weighted line with the math, then a last line starting \"Recommendation for CEO:\". The board's rule is that any plan with a downside loss over $250,000 needs a named mitigation first. Use the revised downside, no bullets, plain text, under 100 words.","materialLabel":"Source material (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"SECOND OFFICE (DENVER) - YEAR 1 SCENARIOS\nPrepared by Sales Finance, Oct 20\n\nScenario | Revenue | Cost | Probability (Sales VP)\nBase | $1.2M | $1.0M | 50%\nUpside | $1.6M | $1.1M | 20%\nDownside | $0.9M | $1.0M | 30%\n\nCost includes lease, 6 reps, 1 manager, travel and setup.\n\nEmail from Sales VP, Oct 27:\n\"Update the downside. With the Corbett account gone, downside revenue is $0.7M, not $0.9M. Base and upside don't change.\"\n\nNotes:\n- Lease has a 6-month break clause for a $90,000 fee.\n- Reps could be hired in two waves (3 in Q1, 3 in Q3) to cut early cost.\n- The Phoenix office opened in 2024 hit base case in month 14.\n- Real estate broker says two other buildings are available.","rules":[{"type":"plainText"},{"type":"maxWords","max":100},{"type":"maxBullets","max":0}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Using the stale downside","why":"The AI uses the table and misses the Sales VP's later revision.","fix":"Add: \"Use the revised downside revenue of $0.7M.\"","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"No weighted view","why":"The AI compares scenarios side by side but doesn't combine them with the probabilities.","fix":"Ask: \"Add a Weighted line showing probability × profit for each, summed.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Recommending without the rule","why":"The AI doesn't know the board's $250,000 downside limit, so it recommends going ahead.","fix":"State the rule: \"Any downside loss over $250,000 needs a named mitigation.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Bulleting everything","why":"The AI turns a decision page into bullets and headings.","fix":"Say: \"Plain lines, no bullets, no headings.\"","checks":["maxBullets","plainText"]},{"title":"Trusting the AI to count words","why":"AI is bad at counting and usually runs long on finance write-ups.","fix":"Cap each part instead: \"each line under 15 words\" so the total stays well under 100.","checks":["maxWords"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Uses the revised downside","patterns":["revis","0\\.7","corbett"]},{"label":"Asks for weighted math","patterns":["weight","probabilit","expected"]},{"label":"States the board rule","patterns":["250","board","limit","mitigat"]},{"label":"Puts the recommendation last","patterns":["last line","recommendation","end with"]},{"label":"Sets a length limit","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","word (limit|count)","under \\d+"]}],"hint":"The AI can't know the board's rule or which downside is current. Give it both, and show the lines you want.","rubricLabels":["The Downside line uses the revised $0.7M revenue: $0.7M − $1.0M = −$0.3M (a $300,000 loss)","A Weighted line shows the probability math (0.5 × $0.2M + 0.2 × $0.5M + 0.3 × −$0.3M) and the result of about +$0.11M ($110,000)","The last line starts \"Recommendation for CEO:\" and says the $300,000 downside is over the $250,000 limit, so the office should wait for or proceed only with a named mitigation (such as the lease break clause or hiring in two waves)"]}