Review your deck as the audience.
Your audience encounters the slides, not the explanation in your head. Let informed audience reviewers read the actual deck, then repair what fails to reach them.
Try it now
Copy the prompt into your AI tool of choice, then answer its questions as they come.
Paste it into any AI chat to start. For most people, this is all you need.
Everything on this page in one paste: the prompt plus the full plan, every step and what to check. Use it for longer moves, to plan ahead, to share with a colleague, or if your AI can't open links.
How it goes
What the AI will do
- Identifies the audience and its expressed priorities from meeting and project records.
- Runs separate audience reviews of the actual deck, revises the slides, and checks the revision.
What to have ready
- The deck or a usable export, and the intended meeting if it is not apparent.
- Access to audience and project context where available.
Where you come in
- Clarify the decision the deck should support and any consequential editorial choice.
- Review the revised deck and remaining evidence gaps.
What you'll get
A revised deck with a brief account of the major repairs. If file editing is unavailable, you receive a complete slide-by-slide replacement manuscript, clearly identified as an intermediate result.
You're done when
You have a revised and inspected deck, or a clearly labeled complete replacement manuscript if editing was unavailable, with unresolved decisions and the limits of audience simulation visible.
These are general instructions, not a description of this user's particular AI system, tools, access, or circumstances. Adapt the method to the user's goal and the capabilities you can actually use, while preserving the activity's essential sequence, review points, and intended result. ### Start with the activity and the user's context Read the complete activity and guide the user through it. Use the activity prompt yourself; the user does not need to paste it again. Keep the responsibilities of the user, the AI, and any colleague clear. Begin with what the user has already supplied. Establish the intended result and resolve missing context through focused questions when needed. Work within the activity's stated scope, permissions, required confirmations, and stopping points, including any deliberate order for introducing information. Make progress with the available information and reasonable, clearly identified assumptions where the activity allows them. ### Check the capabilities needed for this work Inspect relevant available tools, connectors, and data. Use small, relevant, non-destructive checks to establish whether necessary access or a capability actually works. Naming a product does not establish access to it. Let this activity determine what needs checking; do not impose a universal preliminary questionnaire or a full system audit. When useful access is missing: - Explain what you cannot reach and how that material would help. - Investigate practical setup, connection, export, or other access alternatives before asking the user to gather material or troubleshoot. - If progress depends on access, request only the specific user action or permission needed to enable it or provide the material another way. Continue useful independent work while awaiting the response. - Offer to walk the user through an export or upload. Welcome files, links, copied text, rough notes, or an interview as supported by your system and the activity, and use the best available route. If the missing access is optional, continue with what is available. ### Ask focused questions and respect the answers Ask questions only when necessary to complete the work well or satisfy the activity's required review points. Build on answers already supplied. Ask one question at a time, or a small group of closely related questions. Wait on work that depends on the answer, and continue useful work that does not. Explain unfamiliar language with examples where helpful. Confirm answers or decisions you supply on the user's behalf before treating them as the user's final answers or decisions. This does not require separate approval of every sourced finding; follow the activity's specific review requirements. ### Keep evidence and independent contributions distinct Distinguish evidence, inference, and missing information. Check your work against the source material. Use independent agents when your system actually supports delegation and independent investigation or review would improve the work: - Give each agent a bounded brief and the context appropriate to its role. - Keep discovery independent until synthesis where the activity requires it. Preserve any requirement for the user or colleagues to contribute before seeing other explanations. - Follow the activity's stated fallback and any required confirmation when independent agents or fresh contexts are unavailable. Preserve reviewer isolation where required; describe shared-context or sequential passes accurately. ### Produce, check, and revise the result Do the substantive investigation and production. Carry the activity through to the most complete, usable result within its scope, rather than ending with a plan or handing the main work back to the user. When missing information does not prevent useful work, proceed with clearly identified assumptions where the activity permits them. Check the result against the activity's completion criteria. At each substantive delivery, state what is complete and any material unfinished work, assumptions, helpful missing information, and remaining uncertainty. Explain how these affect what the user can use, and help the user revise the result. Preserve the activity's stopping point. Do not turn a rehearsal, investigation, or test-design activity into execution that the user has not authorized. ### Establish the deck and its use Review my deck as its audience, then revise it. Inspect the actual file and what you can read and edit: slide text, charts, speaker notes, images, and rendered layout. Establish the meeting, audience, and decision or understanding the deck should produce from my supplied material and the available record. Do not ask me to explain the narrative before the audience reviewers have encountered it. If the deck cannot be opened, investigate a supported export or conversion and guide me through the smallest action needed. If only text is available, distinguish a content review from review of the rendered deck. Determine an achievable editable output route before promising a revised file. ### Find evidence about this audience Inspect and try relevant available connections. Establish attendees from calendar invitations and attendee lists. Search their relevant emails, chats, past meeting contributions and transcripts, shared documents, project roles, decision records, and company data. Look for expressed priorities, unresolved objections, earlier decisions, vocabulary, responsibility for the outcome, and what they already know. Check the deck's important numerical or business claims against underlying records where accessible. Keep a concise source map by audience perspective. Distinguish firsthand expressed concerns from inferred priorities or secondhand characterizations. If the audience is not yet known, use the best established roles and ask a focused question where identity materially affects review. If context access is missing, investigate an export route and proceed with explicitly provisional audience briefs when useful. Do not manufacture named people's opinions. ### Let separate reviewers encounter the deck Use separate agents for materially different audience perspectives where available. Give each the actual deck or rendered slides, a bounded audience brief, and relevant source references and uncertainties. Exclude the author's account of the intended story and other reviewers' reactions from this first pass. Ask each to read in presentation order and report: - What it believes the main point and requested decision are, with slide references. - Where it understands, hesitates, or draws a different conclusion. - Questions and objections grounded in its audience evidence. - Claims it cannot verify and slide elements it cannot interpret. - What would prevent it from making the requested decision. Keep first reviews independent until completion. Bound assignments to a manageable slide and source set. For a long deck, combine section reviewers with an end-to-end reviewer so the overall narrative is still examined; keep a coverage record and use successive waves if needed. Without agents, use fresh-session handoffs or bounded perspective passes and state their actual independence. Do not call an imagined role a real attendee's reaction. ### Decide what the deck needs to change Reconcile findings against the slides and sources. Separate communication failures, missing evidence, audience disagreement with the proposal, and inferred reactions requiring validation. Show me the few consequential choices. For example, an executive decision deck and a technical working session may need different orders and detail. Explain a meaningful alternative when it matters, recommend one, and wait before changes that depend on an unresolved choice. Confirm any new decision, promise, or position you propose on my behalf. Do not weaken a defensible claim merely because a simulated reviewer objects; inspect the objection and evidence. Preserve source accuracy and the proposal's substance. ### Revise the actual slides Edit a copy of the deck using available capabilities. Repair the argument's sequence, slide headlines, decision request, supporting evidence, and visual explanations where the review justifies it. Preserve useful material and distinguish new proposed claims from established facts. Keep source details in suitable notes or references without overloading the presentation. Render or otherwise inspect the revised slides. Check readability, clipping, chart labels, units, calculations, and whether layout changes altered meaning. Return the revision to audience reviewers for another reading focused on the original trouble spots and new issues. Reconcile and correct material findings. ### Deliver the usable result Provide the revised editable deck with a concise change note and any unresolved evidence or decision gaps. If direct deck editing is unavailable, produce a complete slide-by-slide replacement manuscript containing final headlines, body copy, visual instructions, and notes; clearly state that applying and visually checking it remains unfinished. Offer the supported conversion route rather than handing me a vague edit list. Do not claim a file or rendered review you did not produce. Stop before presenting, sharing, or distributing the deck. These instructions were written in September 2026 using the frontier models available at the time. You may now have better tools or models, or restrictions that make some tasks harder. Your AI should adapt to the tools and access you actually have and find the best available way to help. Everything here is a starting suggestion for you and your AI, not a proven best practice for every setup. Feel free to rewrite any of it to better meet your needs.
View full AI instructions
Review your deck as the audience.
What the AI will do
- Identifies the audience and its expressed priorities from meeting and project records.
- Runs separate audience reviews of the actual deck, revises the slides, and checks the revision.
What you can provide
- The deck or a usable export, and the intended meeting if it is not apparent.
- Access to audience and project context where available.
Where you'll take part
- Clarify the decision the deck should support and any consequential editorial choice.
- Review the revised deck and remaining evidence gaps.
What you'll get
A revised deck with a brief account of the major repairs. If file editing is unavailable, you receive a complete slide-by-slide replacement manuscript, clearly identified as an intermediate result.
Activity context
Your audience encounters the slides, not the explanation in your head. Let informed audience reviewers read the actual deck, then repair what fails to reach them.
For the user
Provide the deck and identify the meeting if needed. The AI will investigate who is attending and what they care about, have audience reviewers encounter the slides without your explanation, and make the changes. You will clarify consequential choices and inspect the revision.
Guidance for the AI
These are general instructions, not a description of this user's particular AI system, tools, access, or circumstances. Adapt the method to the user's goal and the capabilities you can actually use, while preserving the activity's essential sequence, review points, and intended result.
Start with the activity and the user's context
Read the complete activity and guide the user through it. Use the activity prompt yourself; the user does not need to paste it again. Keep the responsibilities of the user, the AI, and any colleague clear.
Begin with what the user has already supplied. Establish the intended result and resolve missing context through focused questions when needed. Work within the activity's stated scope, permissions, required confirmations, and stopping points, including any deliberate order for introducing information. Make progress with the available information and reasonable, clearly identified assumptions where the activity allows them.
Check the capabilities needed for this work
Inspect relevant available tools, connectors, and data. Use small, relevant, non-destructive checks to establish whether necessary access or a capability actually works. Naming a product does not establish access to it. Let this activity determine what needs checking; do not impose a universal preliminary questionnaire or a full system audit.
When useful access is missing:
- Explain what you cannot reach and how that material would help.
- Investigate practical setup, connection, export, or other access alternatives before asking the user to gather material or troubleshoot.
- If progress depends on access, request only the specific user action or permission needed to enable it or provide the material another way. Continue useful independent work while awaiting the response.
- Offer to walk the user through an export or upload. Welcome files, links, copied text, rough notes, or an interview as supported by your system and the activity, and use the best available route. If the missing access is optional, continue with what is available.
Ask focused questions and respect the answers
Ask questions only when necessary to complete the work well or satisfy the activity's required review points. Build on answers already supplied. Ask one question at a time, or a small group of closely related questions. Wait on work that depends on the answer, and continue useful work that does not. Explain unfamiliar language with examples where helpful.
Confirm answers or decisions you supply on the user's behalf before treating them as the user's final answers or decisions. This does not require separate approval of every sourced finding; follow the activity's specific review requirements.
Keep evidence and independent contributions distinct
Distinguish evidence, inference, and missing information. Check your work against the source material.
Use independent agents when your system actually supports delegation and independent investigation or review would improve the work:
- Give each agent a bounded brief and the context appropriate to its role.
- Keep discovery independent until synthesis where the activity requires it. Preserve any requirement for the user or colleagues to contribute before seeing other explanations.
- Follow the activity's stated fallback and any required confirmation when independent agents or fresh contexts are unavailable. Preserve reviewer isolation where required; describe shared-context or sequential passes accurately.
Produce, check, and revise the result
Do the substantive investigation and production. Carry the activity through to the most complete, usable result within its scope, rather than ending with a plan or handing the main work back to the user. When missing information does not prevent useful work, proceed with clearly identified assumptions where the activity permits them.
Check the result against the activity's completion criteria. At each substantive delivery, state what is complete and any material unfinished work, assumptions, helpful missing information, and remaining uncertainty. Explain how these affect what the user can use, and help the user revise the result.
Preserve the activity's stopping point. Do not turn a rehearsal, investigation, or test-design activity into execution that the user has not authorized.
Your AI prompt
Establish the deck and its use
Review my deck as its audience, then revise it. Inspect the actual file and what you can read and edit: slide text, charts, speaker notes, images, and rendered layout. Establish the meeting, audience, and decision or understanding the deck should produce from my supplied material and the available record. Do not ask me to explain the narrative before the audience reviewers have encountered it.
If the deck cannot be opened, investigate a supported export or conversion and guide me through the smallest action needed. If only text is available, distinguish a content review from review of the rendered deck. Determine an achievable editable output route before promising a revised file.
Find evidence about this audience
Inspect and try relevant available connections. Establish attendees from calendar invitations and attendee lists. Search their relevant emails, chats, past meeting contributions and transcripts, shared documents, project roles, decision records, and company data. Look for expressed priorities, unresolved objections, earlier decisions, vocabulary, responsibility for the outcome, and what they already know. Check the deck's important numerical or business claims against underlying records where accessible.
Keep a concise source map by audience perspective. Distinguish firsthand expressed concerns from inferred priorities or secondhand characterizations. If the audience is not yet known, use the best established roles and ask a focused question where identity materially affects review. If context access is missing, investigate an export route and proceed with explicitly provisional audience briefs when useful. Do not manufacture named people's opinions.
Let separate reviewers encounter the deck
Use separate agents for materially different audience perspectives where available. Give each the actual deck or rendered slides, a bounded audience brief, and relevant source references and uncertainties. Exclude the author's account of the intended story and other reviewers' reactions from this first pass. Ask each to read in presentation order and report:
- What it believes the main point and requested decision are, with slide references.
- Where it understands, hesitates, or draws a different conclusion.
- Questions and objections grounded in its audience evidence.
- Claims it cannot verify and slide elements it cannot interpret.
- What would prevent it from making the requested decision.
Keep first reviews independent until completion. Bound assignments to a manageable slide and source set. For a long deck, combine section reviewers with an end-to-end reviewer so the overall narrative is still examined; keep a coverage record and use successive waves if needed. Without agents, use fresh-session handoffs or bounded perspective passes and state their actual independence. Do not call an imagined role a real attendee's reaction.
Decide what the deck needs to change
Reconcile findings against the slides and sources. Separate communication failures, missing evidence, audience disagreement with the proposal, and inferred reactions requiring validation. Show me the few consequential choices. For example, an executive decision deck and a technical working session may need different orders and detail. Explain a meaningful alternative when it matters, recommend one, and wait before changes that depend on an unresolved choice.
Confirm any new decision, promise, or position you propose on my behalf. Do not weaken a defensible claim merely because a simulated reviewer objects; inspect the objection and evidence. Preserve source accuracy and the proposal's substance.
Revise the actual slides
Edit a copy of the deck using available capabilities. Repair the argument's sequence, slide headlines, decision request, supporting evidence, and visual explanations where the review justifies it. Preserve useful material and distinguish new proposed claims from established facts. Keep source details in suitable notes or references without overloading the presentation.
Render or otherwise inspect the revised slides. Check readability, clipping, chart labels, units, calculations, and whether layout changes altered meaning. Return the revision to audience reviewers for another reading focused on the original trouble spots and new issues. Reconcile and correct material findings.
Deliver the usable result
Provide the revised editable deck with a concise change note and any unresolved evidence or decision gaps. If direct deck editing is unavailable, produce a complete slide-by-slide replacement manuscript containing final headlines, body copy, visual instructions, and notes; clearly state that applying and visually checking it remains unfinished. Offer the supported conversion route rather than handing me a vague edit list. Do not claim a file or rendered review you did not produce. Stop before presenting, sharing, or distributing the deck.
Done when
You have a revised and inspected deck, or a clearly labeled complete replacement manuscript if editing was unavailable, with unresolved decisions and the limits of audience simulation visible.
These instructions were written in September 2026 using the frontier models available at the time. You may now have better tools or models, or restrictions that make some tasks harder. Your AI should adapt to the tools and access you actually have and find the best available way to help. Everything here is a starting suggestion for you and your AI, not a proven best practice for every setup. Feel free to rewrite any of it to better meet your needs.
These instructions were written in September 2026 using the frontier models available at the time. You may now have better tools or models, or restrictions that make some tasks harder. Your AI should adapt to the tools and access you actually have and find the best available way to help. Everything here is a starting suggestion for you and your AI, not a proven best practice for every setup. Feel free to rewrite any of it to better meet your needs.