Choose the deck type

Complete Turn the deck into one decision first.

Pitch decks, sales decks, updates, training decks, and leave-behinds do different jobs. The type decides how much context, proof, and explanation each slide needs. This lesson asks you to make a deck-type choice with rules, not a prettier version of scattered notes. The output should be specific enough that someone could open the deck file and see what changed.

Here is the before and after: Before, one file tries to work in every room. After, the deck type sets the pacing, evidence level, slide density, and notes style. For example, if you are preparing a sales presentation, the artifact should name the audience, slide job, proof, speaker note, or export check where that detail matters. A reviewer should be able to tell whether the deck is closer to being presented, sent, or handed off.

Now try it: Compare your use case against five deck types and choose the one that matches the next real audience. Make one choice before asking Claude to write: which audience, which decision, which proof, which slide job, or which delivery mode matters most right now. That choice keeps the deck from becoming a generic presentation outline.

The lesson is done when the artifact moves the deck toward a real room, reader, or file handoff.

Classify this deck as investor pitch, sales deck, internal update, training deck, or leave-behind. My audience and decision are: [paste]. Return the best type, why, what to include, what to avoid, and how dense the slides should be.

If any input is missing, ask me up to three questions before producing the artifact. Then return five sections: Finished Artifact, Realistic Deck Example, Assumptions To Check, What I Should Use In The Next Lesson, and One Risk If I Present Or Send This Without Fixing It. Keep the answer practical enough that I can paste it into my deck working doc.

Finished Artifact:
- a deck-type choice with rules
- Why it matters: it gives the deck a concrete thing to inspect instead of a vague intention.
- Use it next: paste this artifact into the next lesson before asking Claude to write, build, import, publish, or review anything.

Reality Check:
- The artifact names the user, input, decision, owner, or proof it depends on.
- The weakest assumption is visible.
- The next step can be completed in one sitting.

What good looks like

• One deck type is chosen.
• The choice explains how live or send-ahead delivery changes the file.
• The density rule is clear.
• The proof expectation is named.

Without rereading the lesson, explain why a deck-type choice with rules matters in three bullets. Then apply it to a second deck example: [describe a different audience, room, or topic]. Return What Changed, What Stayed The Same, What To Check Before Presenting Or Sending, and the exact next action.

Transfer Check:
- What changed: the second example has a different audience, input, or delivery context.
- What stayed the same: a deck-type choice with rules still needs a source, a review check, and a next step.
- Before trusting it: inspect the delivery check that would catch a wrong assumption.
- Next action: run the check once, then carry the revised artifact into the next lesson.

What good looks like

• You explained the lesson idea from memory before applying it again.
• The second example changes the artifact instead of copying the first answer.
• The delivery check names a real risk.
• The next action can be done in one sitting.