Inventory source material and proof
Notes, numbers, quotes, and assets
After this, you'll be able to create a proof inventory and use it to move a deck from rough material toward a presentable file.
Before you start
Complete Write the one-sentence argument first.
The idea
Decks get stronger when proof is visible before writing starts. Proof can be numbers, screenshots, quotes, customer notes, research, work samples, or decisions already made. This lesson asks you to make a proof inventory, 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, Claude writes confident slides from thin notes. After, every claim has a source, and missing proof is named before design hides the gap. 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: Put every source into a proof table with claim, source, owner, quality, and missing status. 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.
- Messy inputThe raw pitch deck material before the lesson shapes it.
- a proof inventoryThe thing you can inspect, edit, and reuse.
- Review checkThe delivery check that catches a weak assumption.
- Next stepThe output moves into the next lesson instead of sitting alone.
The lesson is done when the artifact moves the deck toward a real room, reader, or file handoff.
Try it (16 min)
Watch out for
- Putting speaker notes on the slide instead of in the notes field.
- Writing labels that describe the chart without making a claim.
- Skipping the proof check because the deck looks persuasive.
Paste this into Claude
Create a proof inventory for my deck. Argument: [paste]. Source material: [paste notes, links, data, quotes, or asset list]. Return a table with Claim Supported, Source, Quality, Owner, Missing Proof, and Slide Use. 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.
What a good response looks like
Finished Artifact: - a proof inventory - 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
- Every major claim has a source or a missing-proof label.
- The table names who owns missing material.
- Weak proof is marked instead of ignored.
- Assets such as screenshots or logos are listed separately.
Go deeper (8 min)
Paste this into Claude
Without rereading the lesson, explain why a proof inventory 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.
What a good response looks like
Transfer Check: - What changed: the second example has a different audience, input, or delivery context. - What stayed the same: a proof inventory 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.
When this breaks
- Breaks when a slide claim has no source because the presenter cannot defend it in questions.
- Fails when proof is hidden in notes because the builder cannot tell what deserves visual weight.
AI can help with this
Paste the exercise prompt into Claude with your real deck context. Ask Claude to interview you one question at a time, produce a proof inventory, challenge the weakest assumption, and rewrite the artifact once so it is ready for the next deck step.
You can now
You can explain a proof inventory in one sentence.
- You can name the source material or decision it depends on.
- You can name the assumption that still needs checking.
- You can point to the check that proves it is ready for the next deck step.
Key takeaways
The proof inventory keeps the deck honest and gives the builder real material to design around.
- Proof can be quantitative or qualitative.
- Missing proof should be visible early.
- Source owners prevent last-minute searching.
- Assets belong in the inventory.