qa-aman Overview
Based on "The Pyramid Principle" by Barbara Minto. A findings presentation is not a documentary of your analytical process - it is a structured argument. The storyline follows situation-complication-resolution, the answer leads, and every slide makes a single assertion that the evidence on that slide proves. The audience should be able to read only the slide titles in sequence and understand the full argument.
The key test: if you remove all charts and bullets and read the slide titles in order, do they tell a coherent, complete story? If yes, the deck has a good storyline. If not, the structure needs work before the content does.
Workflow
Step 1: Define the Audience and the Ask
Before building a single slide, answer:
- Who is in the room? (Titles, decision authority, what they care about)
- What is the decision or action you want from this meeting?
- What do they already know and believe?
- What might they resist?
The ask governs the whole deck. A presentation where you want the client to approve a recommendation is structured differently from one where you want to align them on the problem diagnosis.
Step 2: Build the Storyline (Titles Only)
Write slide titles for the entire deck before creating any content. Each title must be an assertion (a sentence with a point of view), not a label.
- Label (weak): "Revenue Analysis"
- Assertion (strong): "Revenue has declined 18% YoY, driven entirely by mid-market churn"
A 15-slide presentation should have 15 assertions that, read in sequence, form a complete argument from problem to recommendation.
Storyline structure:
1-2. [Situation] - Business context that sets the stage
1-2. [Complication] - What has changed or is at risk
1. [Main message] - Your headline finding or recommendation
2-4. [Evidence block 1] - Supports main message
2-4. [Evidence block 2] - Supports main message
2-4. [Evidence block 3] - If needed
1-2. [Implications] - What this means for the client
1-3. [Recommendations] - Specific actions
1. [Next steps] - Who does what by when
Step 3: Write the Opening (Situation-Complication-Resolution)
The first 3-4 slides establish context, create tension, and state the main message.
Slide 1 - Situation: Non-controversial context the audience already knows and agrees with. Sets the shared starting point.
Title example: "[Your client] serves [X] customers across [Y] markets with [Z] in revenue"
Slide 2 - Complication: The change or risk that makes the rest of the deck necessary. Contains the key data point that drives urgency.
Title example: "Despite market growth, [your client]'s revenue has declined 18% - a gap of $X vs. target"
Slide 3 - Main Message: The answer. Your core finding or recommendation, stated directly. This is the single most important slide in the deck.
Title example: "Three fixable failures in the mid-market sales process explain the full revenue gap"
Everything after Slide 3 proves the main message.
Step 4: Structure Evidence Blocks (MECE)
Group your supporting findings into 2-4 MECE clusters. Each cluster becomes an evidence block with its own assertion slide (governing thought) followed by supporting evidence slides.
Evidence block structure:
Block assertion: "[Main claim of this block]"
- Evidence slide 1: "[Specific finding that supports the block assertion]"
- Evidence slide 2: "[Specific finding that supports the block assertion]"
- Evidence slide 3: [If needed]
MECE test for evidence blocks:
- Each piece of evidence supports exactly one block assertion (no overlaps)
- The blocks together fully prove the main message (no gaps)
Example:
Main message: Three fixable failures explain the revenue gap
Block 1: "Outbound prospecting volume has dropped 40% since [date]"
- Evidence: Prospecting activity data by quarter
- Evidence: Sales rep time allocation shifted to account management
Block 2: "Mid-market qualification criteria changed but sales training did not"
- Evidence: Pipeline data showing low-probability deals entering funnel
- Evidence: Survey: 70% of reps cannot articulate new ICP criteria
Block 3: "Close rates dropped due to proposals that do not address buyer economics"
- Evidence: Win/loss interview summary
- Evidence: Proposal quality scoring across won vs. lost deals
Step 5: Design Individual Slides
Each slide: one assertion, one supporting visual or table, minimal text.
Slide anatomy:
- Title: The assertion (the so-what of the slide)
- Body: One chart, table, or structured list that proves the title
- Callout/annotation: The key data point highlighted directly on the visual
- Source: Data source in small type at bottom
One-slide tests:
- If someone reads only the title, do they get the main point?
- Does the visual prove the title - or does it show something adjacent?
- Is there anything on this slide that does not directly support the title? (Remove it)
Common slide types:
- Diagnostic slide: shows the problem or its root cause (bar chart, waterfall, scatter)
- Benchmark slide: compares client to peers or best practice (bar chart with reference line)
- Process/framework slide: shows a structure or flow (table, decision tree)
- Implication slide: translates a finding into a business consequence (narrative + one data point)
- Recommendation slide: states the action with supporting rationale (structured list or 2x2)
Step 6: Build the Recommendations Section
Each recommendation:
- Is directly anchored to a finding (make the linkage explicit)
- Is specific (what to do, not "consider" or "explore")
- Has an owner, timeline, and expected outcome
Template per recommendation:
Recommendation [X]: [Title as a clear directive]
Because: [Finding that drives this recommendation - 1 sentence]
Action: [Specific action - verb + object + timeframe]
Owner: [Role]
Expected outcome: [Measurable result]
Effort: [High / Medium / Low]
Impact: [High / Medium / Low]
Step 7: Close with Next Steps
The final slide is a single clear action table. One thing to leave with: who is doing what by when.
Template:
| Action | Owner | By When |
|----------------------------------|---------------------|----------|
| [Specific action 1] | [Role] | [Date] |
| [Specific action 2] | [Role] | [Date] |
| [Decision: approve/reject X] | [Executive sponsor] | [Date] |
No more than 5 items. If there are 10 next steps, the presentation did not achieve alignment on priorities.
Anti-Patterns
1. Slide titles as labels Bad: "Customer Analysis", "Revenue Trends", "Recommendations" Good: "Mid-market customers churn at 3x the rate of enterprise", "Revenue declined 18% driven by mid-market", "Fixing qualification criteria would recover $X in 12 months" Label titles make the audience work to find the point. Assertion titles state the point and use the visual as proof.
2. Story that follows the analytical process Bad: "First we looked at revenue, then we looked at cost, then we interviewed customers..." Good: Situation - Complication - Main message - Proof - Recommendations The audience does not care how you found the answer. They care what the answer is.
3. Burying the main message Bad: 8 slides of findings before a synthesis slide at slide 9 that says "therefore..." Good: Main message stated at slide 3. Everything after proves it. Clients want to evaluate your conclusion as they consume the evidence.
4. Multiple assertions on one slide Bad: A slide titled "Revenue is declining and customers are churning and our NPS is low" Good: One assertion per slide. Three things happening means three slides, or one synthesis slide with a single overarching point.
5. Evidence that does not prove the title Bad: Title says "Mid-market churn is the primary driver" but the chart shows overall revenue by product line. Good: Title and visual are in a direct proof relationship. Mismatched titles and visuals signal that the deck was assembled, not argued.
Quality Checklist
- Audience and ask defined before any slides were built
- All slide titles are assertions (sentences with a point of view), not labels
- Titles read in sequence tell a complete, coherent story (storyline test)
- Opening follows Situation - Complication - Main Message
- Main message stated by slide 3-4 (not buried at the end)
- Evidence blocks are MECE - no overlaps, no gaps
- Each evidence slide title is proven by the visual on that slide
- Each slide makes one assertion, supported by one visual
- Recommendations are specific directives, not "explore" or "consider"
- Recommendations are linked to specific findings
- Next steps table has owner, action, and date for each item (max 5)
- Deck is readable title-only (storyline test passes)