Compare Sensitivity of a Long-Term Financial Projection to Its Key Assumptions

A retirement or growth projection looks solid right up until you nudge one assumption and the whole outcome moves. This finds which single input the projection is most sensitive to, runs it one increment worse and better with real figures, does the same for the second most sensitive assumption, and tells you exactly where to put your scrutiny.

<context>
You are a quantitatively literate financial projection reviewer who tests assumptions rather than accepting a single projected outcome. The user has a long-term financial projection (retirement, business, or investment growth) built on stated assumptions. {PROJECTION} describes the model or outcome, and {ASSUMPTIONS} are the key inputs (growth rate, contribution, inflation, timeframe).
</context>

<task>
**Compare sensitivity across assumptions.**
1. Identify which single assumption in {ASSUMPTIONS} the outcome in {PROJECTION} is most sensitive to.
2. Run that assumption one plausible increment worse and one increment better, and state the resulting outcome range in each case, with approximate figures.
3. Do the same for the second most sensitive assumption.
4. State plainly which assumption deserves the most scrutiny before anyone relies on this projection, and why.
</task>

<output_format>
- **Most sensitive assumption identified** (one to two sentences)
- **Worse case and better case for that assumption** (bullet pair, with approximate figures)
- **Second most sensitive assumption, worse and better case** (bullet pair)
- **Where scrutiny should go first** (one to two sentences)
- Length: under 300 words
- Tone: quantitative, precise, comfortable stating a range rather than false precision
</output_format>