Pitch Deck Reviewer
Review pitch decks through the lens of two complementary frameworks. Read references/frameworks.md before starting any review.
Review Workflow
- Read the deck — Go through every slide, extracting the core message of each.
- Map slides to the 7 Blocks — Identify which Block(s) each slide addresses. Flag slides that don't map to any Block.
- 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
- Assess the 4 Conviction Layers — For each layer (Market, Insight, Founder, Execution), rate how well the deck builds conviction: Strong / Needs Work / Missing.
- Check narrative flow — Do the slides follow the Inevitable Story arc (Blocks 1→7)? Flag breaks in logic or missing narrative bridges.
- 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
- 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
| Layer | Rating | Key Gap |
|---|---|---|
| MARKET | Strong / Needs Work / Missing | [Specific gap] |
| INSIGHT | Strong / Needs Work / Missing | [Specific gap] |
| FOUNDER | Strong / Needs Work / Missing | [Specific gap] |
| EXECUTION | Strong / Needs Work / Missing | [Specific gap] |
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.