Can you send this forecast update?
Find the unsupported claim in an AI-written board note.
The question
Cairn Operations supports a fictional Singapore software client. You are reviewing a finance update before the CFO sees it.
| January | February | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue booked, SGD thousands | 800 | 920 |
| New contracts signed, SGD thousands | 300 | 360 |
| Refunds, SGD thousands | 20 | 35 |
Figures are illustrative. Contract value is not the same measure as recognized revenue.
Revenue rose 20% in February, proving that our new AI sales assistant caused a sustained improvement in demand.
- FinanceThe February revenue includes a delayed January implementation milestone. We have only one month after the assistant launch.
- SalesThe assistant was used by half the team. No comparison of similar accounts has been run.
“What would you send, what would you remove, and what would you check next?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Reconcile the measure
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep 20%; both measures point up.
Tempting, but it misses something. Direction does not excuse a mislabeled figure.
Recalculate revenue growth and separate contract value.
The strong move. The figures support two different statements.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Revenue rose 15%: (920 − 800) ÷ 800. New contract value rose 20%. The draft used the contract growth rate for revenue.”
Why it works: Checking the denominator and measure catches a plausible but wrong number.
Step 2: Remove the causal claim
“I would remove “proving” and “sustained.” One month and a timing adjustment cannot show that the assistant caused demand to improve.”
Why it works: A correct percentage would still leave a causal error.
Step 3: Write a defensible update
“February booked revenue was SGD 920,000, up 15% from January, partly affected by a delayed milestone. New contract value rose 20%. The assistant’s contribution has not been isolated.”
Why it works: The replacement keeps useful facts and states the limit beside the claim.
Step 4: Choose the next check
“Ask Finance to reconcile milestone timing, then compare similar accounts or run a staged rollout. Keep the workbook version and cell references with the draft.”
Why it works: A traceable record makes later review possible; a controlled comparison tests the contribution.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Send a corrected descriptive update.
- Because
- The source supports growth, not the stated rate or causal explanation.
- What would change it
- A longer matched comparison could support a narrower claim about the assistant’s contribution.
Common traps
- Checking grammar but not numbers.
- Treating a model-generated citation as proof it read the workbook.
Check your answer
- Did I calculate 15% correctly?
- Did I distinguish revenue from contract value?
- Did I remove unsupported causality?
- Did I preserve traceable evidence?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026