Can you recommend either warehouse as ready?
Check the source and date behind an AI-written property claim.
The question
Northbank Advisory’s fictional UK client needs an industrial site operating within seven weeks. Its first-year budget for rent plus fit-out is £350,000. Other operating requirements are equal. All figures and documents are invented.
| A | B | |
|---|---|---|
| Area (sq m) | 2000 | 2000 |
| Annual rent (£/sq m) | 130 | 145 |
| Fit-out (£) | 80000 | 40000 |
| Power timing (weeks) | 12 | 6 |
| Timing source | Brochure: upgrade planned | Dated network-operator letter |
The timing documents are evidence to check, not a guarantee of completion.
Both warehouses are ready for the client. Choose A because its rent is lower.
“Can you recommend either warehouse as ready?”
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: What needs verification first?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Accept the draft because it names both buildings.
Tempting, but it misses something. Naming a property does not verify the power claim.
Check the operator evidence, date and conditions.
The strong move. This tests the claim against the relevant source.
Treat the brochure as stronger than the operator letter.
Tempting, but it misses something. A sales description does not override the relevant technical source.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Trace the readiness claim to dated source documents and confirm their conditions.”
Why it works: A planned upgrade is different from a completed or confirmed connection.
Step 2: What is the first-year cost?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
A is £260,000 and B is £290,000.
Tempting, but it misses something. Those are rents only; the budget also covers fit-out.
A is £340,000 and B is £330,000.
The strong move. Both calculations include the stated first-year components.
A is cheaper because £130 is below £145.
Tempting, but it misses something. That compares a unit rent rather than the specified total.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A costs 2,000 × £130 + £80,000 = £340,000. B costs 2,000 × £145 + £40,000 = £330,000.”
Why it works: The annual rent ranking reverses once the supplied fit-out costs are included.
Step 3: Which option can you recommend?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
A, because it is also under budget.
Tempting, but it misses something. A misses the seven-week operating requirement.
B, with the timing and conditions clearly qualified.
The strong move. This uses the best current evidence without promising an outcome.
Either, with an unconditional readiness guarantee.
Tempting, but it misses something. Neither source supports an unconditional guarantee.
See how a strong candidate says it
“B is the only initial fit for both limits, subject to confirming the operator letter’s conditions.”
Why it works: Its £330,000 cost fits the budget and six weeks fits the timing. A’s planned 12 weeks does not.
Step 4: What should the update change?
A newer network-operator letter moves B’s power availability to nine weeks. A is still at 12 weeks. The client’s seven-week deadline and budget are unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use the old letter because the client already liked B.
Tempting, but it misses something. That ignores the newer operator evidence.
Explain the gap and obtain a revised plan with the client.
The strong move. This keeps the recommendation tied to current evidence and the client’s limit.
Add the two sites’ capacities and promise a combined solution.
Tempting, but it misses something. The case gives no verified shared operation or temporary arrangement.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Withdraw the seven-week readiness claim. Neither site now meets the unchanged brief; discuss a verified temporary arrangement or a new search.”
Why it works: A newer relevant source changes the timing evidence. Keep the cost and timing tests separate.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Do not describe either property as ready within seven weeks.
- Because
- The newest evidence puts both dates outside the client’s operating deadline.
- What would change it
- A verified temporary arrangement, earlier operator commitment or agreed client deadline could change the advice.
Common traps
- Calling a planned utility upgrade ready.
- Keeping an older letter after newer evidence arrives.
Check your answer
- Who produced the readiness claim?
- Which document is newest?
- Did I include fit-out costs?
- Does the option still meet the operating date?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026