Example Grading Results
This is a sample grading result based on an M&A case study submission. See how MarkInMinutes provides detailed, actionable feedback.
Accomplished
LowExample files are shown for display only. Documents cannot be downloaded.
Project Zeus_Group 4_Presentation.pdf
application/pdf • 1493.1 KB
Project Zeus_Engagement Letter_Group 4.pdf
application/pdf • 157.4 KB
MoF A&M
Anonymous • 2/9/2026, 4:53:29 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
2
Patterns Found
11
Total Errors
1
Systematic Issues
What are error patterns?
Error patterns group individual mistakes to reveal systematic learning gaps. Addressing these patterns is more effective than fixing individual errors.
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 Wins
3Fix Grammatical Error in Title
Correct Typo in Recommendation
Fix Spelling Error
Priority Fixes
Recalculate severance using 0.7–1.0 months per year of tenure; align with Appendix assumptions.
"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'.
"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.
Ready to grade your own submissions?
Experience AI-powered grading that saves you hours while delivering consistent, detailed feedback.