Example grading results
This is a sample grading result based on an M&A case study submission. See how MarkInMinutes provides detailed, actionable feedback.
Overall grade
Accomplished · Low
MoF A&M
Anonymous9 Feb 2026, 16:53
Submitted files
Project Zeus_Group 4_Presentation.pdf
PDF · 1,493.1 KB
Project Zeus_Engagement Letter_Group 4.pdf
PDF · 157.4 KB
Executive summary
This submission demonstrates an Accomplished level of proficiency, particularly in its use of strong vertical logic and the rigorous quantitative comparison of Enterprise Values to justify the dual-track recommendation. A standout feature is the Engagement Letter, which effectively places the 'Bottom Line Up Front' (BLUF), providing immediate clarity on the strategic direction. However, the analysis suffers from critical technical errors, most notably a valuation timeline that incorrectly discounts 2023 and 2024 as future periods despite the project being dated November 2025, as well as a factual oversight regarding Hera's IT headcount which contradicts the organizational chart. While the strategic narrative is persuasive, paying closer attention to case facts and valuation mechanics is necessary to ensure the financial modeling supports your conclusions robustly.
Strengths
- Strong vertical logic and rigorous quantitative comparison of Enterprise Values.
- Engagement Letter effectively places the Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF).
- Structured comparison of four strategic options (Turnaround, Merger, Sale, Closure).
- Liquidation scenario modeled with high granularity.
- Sensitivity tables for WACC and Growth Rate in the appendix.
Areas for improvement
- Critical timeline error: DCF treats 2023–2024 as forecast periods despite Nov 2025 date.
- Proposal to cut 46 IT FTEs contradicts the Org Chart (Hera uses Group IT services).
- Lacks liquidity runway or insolvency test for restructuring context.
- Introductory slides use descriptive titles rather than governing thoughts.
- Apollo recommendation (Sale vs Turnaround) not explicitly justified in the narrative.
Recommendation
Overall grade: Accomplished - Low. Address timeline and factual consistency to strengthen the submission.
Dimension Scores
The submission demonstrates a capacity for detailed modeling (e.g., liquidation costs) but is undermined by two critical conceptual errors: a fundamental timeline mismatch in the DCF valuation and a misinterpretation of the organizational structure regarding IT costs.
Strengths
The liquidation scenario (Option D) is modeled with high granularity, applying specific, logical haircuts to assets and calculating severance costs based on tenure assumptions.
Severance (28.2) ... Inventory liquidation loss (4.1) ... Asset write-off (2.1)
submission.pdfPage 17Slide 17 The inclusion of sensitivity tables for WACC and Growth Rate in the appendix demonstrates an understanding of valuation drivers.
WACC 8.00% ... 5.00% ... PGR 0.50% ... 3.50% ... Enterprise Value
submission.pdfPage 30Slide 30
Areas for improvement
Critical timeline error in valuation. The project is dated Nov 2025, but the DCF treats 2023 and 2024 as forecast periods (E) and discounts them. This invalidates the Enterprise Value calculation.
Critical2023E ... PV of UFCF -5.1
submission.pdfPage 30Slide 30 Recommendation
Set the valuation date to Nov 2025. Treat 2023-2024 as actuals (sunk costs) or stub periods, and only discount future cash flows starting from late 2025.
The proposal to cut 46 IT FTEs at Hera contradicts the Org Chart, which indicates Hera uses Group IT services. Hera cannot layoff employees it does not have.
MajorReduce IT Headcount... Reducing total headcount of 46 FTE... implies once-off layoff costs of 27.1m€
submission.pdfPage 12Slide 12 Recommendation
Review Exhibit C carefully. Hera utilizes 'Procurement* and IT' which are 'part of Zeus Group Services'. Savings should come from reducing the Group Charge/SLA, not severance.
The presentation exhibits high professional polish (waterfalls, clean layouts, consistent iconography). The visual communication is well above 'Functional' and is objectively 'Effective' and 'Polished'.
The submission demonstrates strong evaluative judgement by moving beyond a linear problem-solution approach to a structured comparison of four distinct strategic options. The recommendation is synthesized well: the decision to sell Apollo is backed by sound logic and the decision to fix Hera is supported by a valuation comparison.
Strengths
Demonstrates excellent evaluative judgement by quantifying and comparing the Enterprise Value (EV) of different strategic options to justify the final recommendation.
ExceptionalTurnaround Hera... EV: 226.2m€ [vs] Sale... EV: 138.2 m€
submission.pdfPage 12Slides 12 & 15
Areas for improvement
The restructuring strategy for Hera relies disproportionately on 'Reviewing Transfer Pricing' (75% of the EBIT impact), which is an internal accounting adjustment rather than a sustainable operational improvement.
MajorRecommendation
Diversify the restructuring levers to include more operational cost-cutting or efficiency measures.
The submission demonstrates a solid grasp of structural logic, utilizing the Pyramid Principle effectively. Key analysis slides feature strong, action-oriented titles. However, introductory slides rely on generic, descriptive titles.
Strengths
Strong application of vertical logic on deep-dive slides, where action-oriented titles are directly supported by the quantitative analysis below.
Hera's turnaround levers presenting a sustainable EBIT margin potential of 3.4% ... [Chart shows bridge to 3.4%]
submission.pdfPage 12Slide 12 The Executive Summary (formatted as an Engagement Letter) effectively places the 'Bottom Line Up Front' (BLUF), summarizing the dual-track recommendation immediately.
We recommend a dual-track solution... Restructuring of Hera... Sale of Apollo
submission.pdfPage 2Slide 1 / Engagement Letter
Areas for improvement
Introductory and process slides utilize descriptive titles that state the topic rather than the insight, breaking the narrative flow.
MinorRecommendation
Rewrite descriptive titles as governing thoughts.
The storyline contains a logical gap regarding the Apollo recommendation: the deck recommends a Sale (EV €46.1m) over a Turnaround (EV €111.2m) without explicitly justifying this value destruction in the narrative.
MajorRecommendation
Explicitly bridge the valuation gap in the recommendation slide.
Individual Errors3 errors found
Location: Page 3, Agenda
Original
01 | ... 02 | ... 03 | ... 05 | ... 04 | ...
Correction
01, 02, 03, 04, 05
Rule explanation
Incorrect numerical ordering. Point '05 Our team & commercials' appears before '04 Our approach'.
Location: Page 7, Market outlook, Bullet 4
Original
Global retail e-comt o reach
Correction
Global retail e-com to reach
Rule explanation
Typo/Spacing error ('e-comt o' instead of 'e-com to').
Location: Page 12, Footnote 2
Original
Strongly alignment with Demeter foundation necessary.
Correction
Strong alignment with Demeter foundation necessary.
Rule explanation
Incorrect use of adverb 'Strongly' modifying a noun. Should be the adjective 'Strong'.
Factual Verification3 issues flagged
Location: Page 30
Claim
Financial Forecast Timeline Inconsistency (2023E, 2024E vs Nov 2025 Date)
Why this was flagged
Confirmed as an error. Even if constrained by data, presenting past years (relative to the document date) as estimates creates a logical paradox. The document treats historical periods as future forecasts.
AI Confidence:95%Location: Page 12
Claim
Specific Departmental Headcounts (e.g., 46 IT FTE)
Why this was flagged
Confirmed hallucination. The specific integer values for departmental headcounts appear nowhere in the source text or charts.
AI Confidence:100%Location: Page 35
Claim
Detailed Historical P&L Data (2019-2022)
Why this was flagged
Confirmed hallucination. The student fabricated entire financial history tables that were not provided in the case material.
AI Confidence:100%
Error Pattern Analysis2 patterns identified
- Patterns Found
- 2
- Occurrences in patterns
- 11
- Systematic Issues
- 1
What are error patterns?
Error patterns group individual mistakes to reveal systematic learning gaps. Addressing these patterns is more effective than fixing individual errors.
Severity Distribution
- Critical: 0
- Major: 0
- Minor: 9
Likely Root Cause
Systematic issue with grammar
Learning Recommendation
Review rules for grammar
Severity Distribution
- Critical: 0
- Major: 0
- Minor: 2
Likely Root Cause
Systematic issue with formatting
Learning Recommendation
Review rules for formatting
Personalized Coaching
Current grade:Accomplished · Low(80%)
Fix This Submission
Focus on correcting the severance cost formula and DCF timeline to strengthen the financial depth of your submission. Then refine the strategic narrative for Apollo.
Quick Wins3
Fix Grammatical Error in Title
+1 pts10-15 minutesCorrect Typo in Recommendation
+2 pts10-15 minutesFix Spelling Error
+3 pts10-15 minutes
Priority Fixes
Recalculate severance using 0.7–1.0 months per year of tenure; align with Appendix assumptions.
Before → Optimized
Before Location: Project Zeus_Group 4.pdf, Page 12
Reducing total headcount of 46 FTE ... implies once-off layoff costs of 27.1m€ in first year of implementation and yearly personnel expense savings of 3.3m€.
The calculation implies ~€590k per employee (approx. 8 years of salary), contradicting the Appendix assumption of '0.7-1.0 months per year'.
Optimized Reducing total headcount of 46 FTE ... implies once-off layoff costs of c. €5.4m in first year of implementation and yearly personnel expense savings of 3.3m€.
Aligns the valuation with standard HR restructuring assumptions, preventing the artificial deflation of the turnaround option's value.
Estimated time: 30-60 minutes
Apply perpetuity formula TV = FCF × (1+g) / (WACC−g) and ensure TV matches stated inputs.
Before → Optimized
Before Location: Project Zeus_Group 4.pdf, Page 30 (DCF Model)
TV 184.9 ... WACC 6,50% ... PGR 2,00%
The reported TV (184.9) does not mathematically align with the stated inputs. Standard perpetuity formula yields a PV of ~253m.
Optimized TV 253.1 ... WACC 6,50% ... PGR 2,00% ... [Resulting EV should increase to approx. 294m€]
Ensures the DCF model is mechanically robust and consistent with standard valuation principles.
Estimated time: 30-60 minutes
Strategic Growth
Focus on the dimension feedback to develop your skills. Strategic analysis requires reviewing specific weaknesses.
Learning Pathway
This Week
- Review dimension feedback
- Address highest-impact weaknesses
Ongoing Habits
- Regular practice
- Seek feedback
- Review exemplar work
Self-Assessment Tools
Excellence Checklist
- Have I addressed all major weaknesses?
- Have I applied the suggested improvements?
Reflection Prompt
What will I do differently next time to achieve a higher score?
Ready to grade your own submissions?
Experience AI-powered grading that saves you hours while delivering consistent, detailed feedback.
Start Grading