Build visual hierarchy

Complete Apply brand or template rules first.

Visual hierarchy tells the audience what to read first, second, and third. This lesson asks you to make a hierarchy review, 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, every element competes for attention. After, the claim, evidence, and action have clear weight and the slide can be scanned quickly. 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: Review five slides for first read, second read, third read, and remove anything that fights the order. 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.

Review these slides for visual hierarchy. For each slide, identify First Read, Second Read, Third Read, Competing Elements, What To Remove, and Suggested Layout Change. Slides: [paste or describe].

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 hierarchy review
- 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 slide has a clear first read.
• Competing elements are named.
• The claim and proof are visually connected.
• The suggested fix is concrete.

Without rereading the lesson, explain why a hierarchy review 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 hierarchy review 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.