Partner Review Checklist
When to use
Use this before sending a deck to a partner, MD, or client. Use it as a self-review on your own deck after building. Use it when you have an hour before a review and need to know what to fix first.
What it does
It evaluates a deck against the standard a senior reviewer applies and returns a prioritized list of fixes. It checks the argument first, then the slide craft, so the most important problems surface before cosmetic ones.
Method
A partner reviews top-down: story before slides, message before format. Apply the checklist in that order so the prioritized list reflects real impact.
Story and answer. Is there one clear recommendation, stated up front? Does the deck answer the audience's actual question? Read the executive summary alone; can the decision be made from it?
Title chain. Read the action titles in sequence. Do they argue the case with no gaps? Is every title a claim, not a topic? Does each title match what its slide proves?
MECE and logic. Within each grouping slide, are the categories non-overlapping and complete? Does each section ladder up to a summary point? Any orphan slide that supports nothing?
Exhibit fit. Does each exhibit match its message (right relationship, right chart)? Is the one insight highlighted? Is there a comparison anchor? Any chart that implies a different conclusion than its title?
Slide craft. Alignment to a grid, consistent spacing, consistent type scale, brand palette, accent used once per slide for meaning, icons from one family, chart junk removed.
Density. One message per slide. Any overloaded slide to split, any thin slide to merge, detail pushed to backup.
Consistency across the deck. Same category in the same color and label everywhere. Consistent footnote and source style. Consistent number formatting and rounding.
Evidence and honesty. Every number on a slide traceable to a source. No claim beyond what the data shows. No invented figure. Assumptions stated where they matter.
The ask and next steps. Does the deck end with a clear decision or action? Is the ask explicit?
Prioritize. Sort findings: blockers (story or logic broken), majors (exhibit or title wrong), minors (alignment, color). Fix blockers first.
Inputs
- The full deck or a section of it.
- The audience and the decision being sought.
- The brand standard, if one applies.
Output format
Return findings grouped as Blockers, Majors, and Minors, each as a specific, actionable fix tied to a slide number. Lead with a one-line verdict on whether the deck is review-ready. End with the three highest-impact fixes to do first.
Example
Verdict: not yet review-ready, story is sound but two exhibits undercut their titles.
Blockers: none.
Majors: slide 6 title claims causation but the scatter only shows correlation, add the controlled comparison or soften the title; slide 9 pie chart with 11 slices, switch to a sorted bar.
Minors: slides 3 and 12 use different colors for the same segment; round all currency to whole millions.
Do first: fix slide 6 logic, fix slide 9 exhibit, unify segment color.
1---2name: partner-review-checklist3description: Runs a deck through a partner-grade review checklist covering story, titles, exhibits, layout, and consistency, returning a prioritized fix list before review.4---56# Partner Review Checklist78## When to use9Use this before sending a deck to a partner, MD, or client. Use it as a self-review on your own deck after building. Use it when you have an hour before a review and need to know what to fix first.1011## What it does12It evaluates a deck against the standard a senior reviewer applies and returns a prioritized list of fixes. It checks the argument first, then the slide craft, so the most important problems surface before cosmetic ones.1314## Method15A partner reviews top-down: story before slides, message before format. Apply the checklist in that order so the prioritized list reflects real impact.16171. Story and answer. Is there one clear recommendation, stated up front? Does the deck answer the audience's actual question? Read the executive summary alone; can the decision be made from it?18192. Title chain. Read the action titles in sequence. Do they argue the case with no gaps? Is every title a claim, not a topic? Does each title match what its slide proves?20213. MECE and logic. Within each grouping slide, are the categories non-overlapping and complete? Does each section ladder up to a summary point? Any orphan slide that supports nothing?22234. Exhibit fit. Does each exhibit match its message (right relationship, right chart)? Is the one insight highlighted? Is there a comparison anchor? Any chart that implies a different conclusion than its title?24255. Slide craft. Alignment to a grid, consistent spacing, consistent type scale, brand palette, accent used once per slide for meaning, icons from one family, chart junk removed.26276. Density. One message per slide. Any overloaded slide to split, any thin slide to merge, detail pushed to backup.28297. Consistency across the deck. Same category in the same color and label everywhere. Consistent footnote and source style. Consistent number formatting and rounding.30318. Evidence and honesty. Every number on a slide traceable to a source. No claim beyond what the data shows. No invented figure. Assumptions stated where they matter.32339. The ask and next steps. Does the deck end with a clear decision or action? Is the ask explicit?343510. Prioritize. Sort findings: blockers (story or logic broken), majors (exhibit or title wrong), minors (alignment, color). Fix blockers first.3637## Inputs38- The full deck or a section of it.39- The audience and the decision being sought.40- The brand standard, if one applies.4142## Output format43Return findings grouped as Blockers, Majors, and Minors, each as a specific, actionable fix tied to a slide number. Lead with a one-line verdict on whether the deck is review-ready. End with the three highest-impact fixes to do first.4445## Example46Verdict: not yet review-ready, story is sound but two exhibits undercut their titles.47Blockers: none.48Majors: slide 6 title claims causation but the scatter only shows correlation, add the controlled comparison or soften the title; slide 9 pie chart with 11 slices, switch to a sorted bar.49Minors: slides 3 and 12 use different colors for the same segment; round all currency to whole millions.50Do first: fix slide 6 logic, fix slide 9 exhibit, unify segment color.
andreworia