Sample
What the report looks like
An extract from the report for the free retail-banking case. The figures below are that case’s real ground truth; the candidate answers are an illustrative composite, not a real customer’s transcript.
Arithmetic check
Framework coverage
| Driver the case was built around | Reached? | First raised |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue drivers | Yes | Turn 4 |
| Cost drivers | Yes | Turn 6 |
| Product mix | Yes | Turn 11 |
| Credit quality & underwriting | Yes | Turn 13 |
| Competitive & macro context | Not reached | — |
Four of five drivers reached. Structure stated on turn 3, before the first number — hypothesis-driven.
Scores
| Dimension | Score | What drove it |
|---|---|---|
| Framework structure | 78 | MECE and stated up front; missed the competitive branch entirely. |
| Quantitative logic | 54 | Two of six figures wrong, one a 100× unit error carried into the recommendation. |
| Business intuition | 71 | Identified underwriting as the likely culprit early, then under-tested it. |
| Executive synthesis | 62 | Recommendation was clear but rested on the incorrect margin figure. |
Ground truth, revealed
Profit fell 58% on flat revenue. The cause is on the cost side and it is narrow: an unsecured personal-loan product launched eighteen months ago under relaxed underwriting. Its default rate is roughly double the rest of the book, and the resulting loan-loss provision — about $50M — accounts for nearly the whole decline. The recommendation the case is built around is to tighten underwriting on that one product rather than to cut cost across the bank.
The full report also includes your complete transcript with a suggested alternative phrasing for each of your turns, pacing against practice targets, and the specific quotes behind every score above.