Pitch Deck Reviewer

Review pitch decks through the lens of two complementary frameworks. Read references/frameworks.md before starting any review.

Review Workflow

1. Read the deck — Go through every slide, extracting the core message of each.
2. Map slides to the 7 Blocks — Identify which Block(s) each slide addresses. Flag slides that don't map to any Block.
3. Evaluate each slide on the ABC dual test:
   • Does this slide reduce risk for the investor (making A→C more credible)?
   • Does this slide increase the value of C (making the outcome bigger/more defensible)?
   • Rate each: Strong / Weak / Missing
4. Assess the 4 Conviction Layers — For each layer (Market, Insight, Founder, Execution), rate how well the deck builds conviction: Strong / Needs Work / Missing.
5. Check narrative flow — Do the slides follow the Inevitable Story arc (Blocks 1→7)? Flag breaks in logic or missing narrative bridges.
6. Audit deck economy — Identify bloat and consolidation opportunities:
   • Slides covering the same Block that should be merged into one punchy slide
   • Slides that dilute a point by spreading it too thin across multiple slides
   • Filler slides (appendix-style data, generic market size charts, logo walls) that add length without conviction
   • Overall slide count vs. the ideal 10–15 range for a VC deck
7. Produce the review output.

Review Output Format

Slide-by-Slide Analysis

For each slide:

Slide N: [Slide Title/Topic]

• Block: [Which of the 7 Blocks this maps to, or "None — consider removing/reworking"]
• Conviction Layer: [MARKET / INSIGHT / FOUNDER / EXECUTION]
• Reduces Risk? [What specific risk it reduces, or "No — here's why"]
• Increases Value of C? [How it expands the future outcome, or "No — here's why"]
• Verdict: [Strong / Needs Work / Weak]
• Suggestion: [One concrete improvement if needed]

Narrative Arc Assessment

Evaluate how well the deck follows the 7-Block sequence. Identify:

• Missing blocks (gaps in the story)
• Out-of-order blocks (narrative confusion)
• Blocks that are present but unconvincing

Conviction Layer Scorecard

ABC Framework Summary

• Point A (Current State): [How well the deck establishes where they are today]
• Point C (Future Vision): [How compelling and large C feels]
• A→C Journey: [Does it feel clear, credible, and inevitable?]
• Valuation Gap: [Does the current stage (A) suggest the price is meaningfully below C?]

Deck Economy

• Slide count: [N slides] — [Over / Under / Within] the 10–15 ideal range
• Merge candidates: List slides that cover the same Block and would land harder as a single slide. Explain what the merged slide should say.
• Cut candidates: List slides that add length without adding conviction. Explain why.
• Split candidates (rare): List slides trying to do too much that should be broken apart.

Top 3 Improvements

Prioritized, actionable changes that would most improve investor conviction.

Evaluation Principles

• A slide that neither reduces risk nor increases C is wasted space — flag it.
• The strongest slides do both simultaneously.
• Block 4 (Earned Secret) is the hardest to nail and the most differentiated — pay extra attention.
• Traction (Block 6) is the single most powerful risk-reducer — if present, evaluate how well it's presented.
• The deck should make the A→C journey feel inevitable, not just possible.
• Shorter decks win. Every slide must earn its spot. Two okay slides are weaker than one great slide — always recommend merging when the message overlaps.
• If a deck exceeds 15 slides, treat length itself as a red flag and explicitly call it out.