// week 04 · day 18 · wed

Build a Narrative for Any Audience.

$/presentation-deck · ~25 min
// 01 · what it does

Narrative before slides.

presentation-deck has two modes. Narrative mode produces a slide-by-slide markdown structure — each slide has a headline written as a takeaway (not a topic label), supporting content points, visual guidance, and speaker notes. Slides mode generates an actual presentation file: .html (default, self-contained), .pdf (via playwright or weasyprint), or .pptx (via python-pptx). Required inputs: audience and purpose/deck type. High-stakes deck types (Exec Review, Board Update) include an additional stress test on the narrative.

Most presentation problems are narrative problems, not design problems. Slides full of bullets fail because they describe content rather than make a claim. A deck with a clear Situation → Complication → Resolution arc tells the audience what to think, not just what to look at. presentation-deck builds the narrative first. If you can't state each slide's headline as a complete claim, the thinking isn't ready to put on a slide.

Day 18 synthesizes the week. The PM has built a business case, prioritized a roadmap, captured decisions, aligned on operating principles, and drafted a one-pager. The deck is how all of that becomes a coherent leadership narrative — the most composable output in the kit.

// slides mode · setup

Slides mode requires additional installs. Use Narrative mode today unless you completed the Slides setup. To generate .pptx: python3 -m pip install python-pptx. To generate .pdf: python3 -m pip install playwright && python3 -m playwright install chromium.

// 02 · sample prompts

Two ways in.

prompt.basic.txt 
/presentation-deck

Narrative mode. Build a 5-slide structure for a VP audience.

Situation: our booking conversion rate has been flat for two quarters at 2.8%. Complication: our two largest competitors are both investing in instant-confirmation features. Resolution: we have an Instant Book feature in beta that shows about 32% higher detail-to-booking conversion, but adoption is low. We need alignment on how to accelerate it.
prompt.advanced.txt 
/presentation-deck

Narrative mode. Q3 marketplace priorities deck.

Audience: Dana Park (VP Product) and Sam Rivera (Head of Engineering).
Purpose: Exec Review / Strategy alignment.
Objective: align on the recommended initiative sequence for the quarter after Android GA ships, and surface the Android GA timeline as a near-term constraint that shapes everything else.

Narrative inputs (use these as source material for each slide — don't just summarize them, build takeaway-first headlines):

1. From Day 8 data analysis: Instant Book shows a consistent ~32% detail-to-booking conversion lift across the beta-period weekly data. In the category table, cancellations are 9.5% of completed-plus-cancelled Instant Book bookings vs. 13.7% for request-to-book. But non-Guide-Pro Instant Book search volume is only 18% of beta-period search sessions (24% including Guide Pro) — the conversion benefit is reaching a limited fraction of adventurers.

2. From Day 10 business case: adventurer repeat rate is 38%, target 45%. A 7-point improvement = ~$609k GMV annually without new acquisition spend. No current re-engagement mechanism. This is the highest-ROI initiative given current CAC.

3. From Day 11 prioritization and the Day 14 decision meeting outcome: recommended Q3 sequence — (1) guide activation listing guidance (can start now, lower Android dependency), (2) adventurer repeat loop (starts post-Android GA), (3) Instant Book flexible mode (third, after repeat loop is in flight). Instant Book mandate debate is resolved: flexible mode is the direction.

4. Android GA constraint: Android GA ships in 6 weeks and consumes the single Android engineer until then. No Android feature work starts before GA. This shapes everything.

5. Post-Day 14 outcome: Dana approved flexible Instant Book as the direction after reviewing the Day 12 decision log and Day 14 meeting brief.

Deck type: Strategy/Roadmap. Target: 8–10 slides. Include speaker notes.
// 03 · reflection

Three questions.

  1. 01How did the skill's headline framing differ from how you would have labeled the slides — and which version makes a stronger claim?
  2. 02Which slide structure revealed a gap in the narrative — a claim you made that doesn't yet have a supporting slide?
  3. 03What would you change about the Situation → Complication → Resolution arc the skill constructed?
← Day 17 Day 19 →