Visual System — deck-wide consistency, navigation & review

Design-judgment methods applied across the whole deck (not one slide), plus the two review gates. For mechanical brand/template enforcement on a corporate .potx (theme slots, placeholders, masters), use references/brand-template-compliance.md — this file is the taste layer, that one is the plumbing.

---

Color & brand discipline (color-and-brand-discipline)

A small, intentional color system applied consistently. Most of the deck is neutral; color is spent only on meaning.

1. Anchor to the brand palette — primary, secondary, neutral grays. No off-brand colors.
2. Define roles, not just colors: a neutral for body and most chart elements, the brand primary for structure/emphasis, one accent for the single most important element on a slide.
3. Make most of the deck neutral — confident, and lets the accent work.
4. Spend the accent sparingly — one accented element per exhibit (the recommended option, the outlier, the quadrant you're in). If everything is accented, nothing is.
5. Encode with shade, not hue — a multi-level series uses shades of one color, light→dark; distinct hues only for truly categorical, unordered series, kept few.
6. Contrast & legibility — meet contrast; avoid light-gray-on-white for load-bearing text; don't rely on red/green alone.
7. Consistency — the same category is the same color on every slide it appears.
8. Audit — flag off-palette colors, rainbow charts, accent overuse; reduce to the role-based system everywhere.

---

Icon discipline (icon-discipline)

An icon must earn its place by speeding recognition, not fill space.

1. Decide if an icon is needed — it helps for a repeated scanned category (a stage, function, risk type), not next to every bullet. Default to none.
2. One icon family — line or solid, one stroke weight, one corner treatment. Never mix line and solid, or two clip-art libraries.
3. Size & align consistently — one or two sizes, grid- and text-aligned; equal optical size matters more than equal pixel size.
4. Monochrome — single neutral tone, accent reserved for the one icon marking the important item.
5. Literal, obvious metaphors (gear = operations, shield = risk); avoid clever/abstract icons the reader must decode.
6. Icons don't replace content — a deck that is mostly icons is under-substantiated.
7. Audit the set side by side; remove duplicates of meaning, replace off-style icons.

---

Imagery (imagery-and-photo-treatment — design view)

One treatment across the deck: a consistent aspect ratio and crop convention, a single color treatment (brand duotone or a defined filter), consistent placement, a minimum resolution. Crop to a focal point (rule-of-thirds), keep faces/product whole, no warping (crop, don't stretch). Use a consistent scrim/overlay where text sits on a photo. Replace low-resolution images rather than upscaling. (For the mechanical PowerPoint duotone/placeholder steps, see references/brand-template-compliance.md.)

---

Flow & navigation (flow-and-page-tracker-auditor)

For a long deck (~15+ slides) so it reads as one document, not loose slides.

1. Map the sections from the storyline (the supporting arguments); confirm slide order matches.
2. Section dividers — each with the section name and its one-line takeaway (a section-level action title).
3. Page tracker — a small, consistent nav element (often a horizontal list of section names) that highlights the current section on body slides. Small, neutral, accent only the current section.
4. Standardize running headers & footers — one header zone, one footer (page number, short title, confidentiality, source), same position/style throughout.
5. Transitions — each section's last slide hands off to the next section's question (a one-line bridge).
6. Verify numbering & order; backup clearly separated and labelled.
7. Keep navigation light — wayfinding, never competing with the message.
8. Re-read as a journey — dividers and trackers alone should narrate the structure start to finish.

---

Partner review (craft gate) (partner-review-checklist)

Reviews top-down: story before slides, message before format, so the prioritized list reflects real impact.

1. Story & answer — one clear recommendation up front; the exec summary alone enables the decision.
2. Title chain — read in sequence; argues the case with no gaps; every title a claim matching its slide.
3. MECE & logic — groupings non-overlapping and complete; each section ladders to a summary point; no orphan slides.
4. Exhibit fit — right relationship/chart; one highlight; a comparison anchor; no chart implying a different conclusion than its title.
5. Slide craft — grid alignment, consistent spacing & type scale, brand palette, one accent per slide, one icon family, chart junk removed.
6. Density — one message per slide; split/merge; detail to backup.
7. Consistency — same category same color/label everywhere; consistent footnotes, sources, number formatting/rounding.
8. Evidence & honesty — every number traceable; no claim beyond the data; no invented figures; assumptions stated.
9. The ask & next steps — clear decision/action.
10. Prioritize — Blockers (story/logic broken) → Majors (exhibit/title wrong) → Minors (alignment/color). Fix blockers first.

Output: findings grouped Blockers/Majors/Minors, each a specific fix tied to a slide number; a one-line review-ready verdict; the three highest-impact fixes first.

---

Red-team review (logic gate) (partner-ready-red-team-review)

Plays a skeptical senior reviewer to surface the questions that would break the deck in the room — run it before the deck meets a partner/client/board.

1. Attack the governing thought — is it a position or a hedge? Could a reasonable partner conclude the opposite from the same evidence? Does the deck rebut the strongest counter-recommendation?
2. Attack the logic — walk the pyramid; does each argument truly prove the level above? Is the key line MECE? Flag every asserted-but-unearned "so what" and every missing step.
3. Attack the evidence — source, strength, sample for each claim; flag single-data-point claims, anecdotes-as-evidence, tiny samples, unsourced numbers; separate proven points from assumptions.
4. Attack the analysis — does the bridge reconcile? percentages off a stated base? forecast sensitivity-tested? what if the key assumption is wrong by 20%? Flag any result hanging on one untested assumption.
5. Attack feasibility — can the client actually do this (cost, time, capability)? Is implementation risk addressed?
6. Find the one slide that breaks it — decks fail at the weakest joint, not the average. Name it and the fix.
7. Convert each attack into a question (in the partner's voice) + severity (fatal / serious / minor) + response (fix the deck / prepare a spoken answer / add a backup slide). Order by severity.

Output: a ranked findings list + a top-line verdict (partner-ready as-is / ready with the listed fixes / not yet).