Research

Audit a presentation for information overload

Find narrative, slide, visual, and speaking-load problems without deleting decision-critical evidence

7 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28

Add your context

Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.

Presentation contentAudience and delivery settingRequired content and edit authority

Your prompt

Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt

Audit the presentation for information overload using the supplied slide content.

Slides, body text, charts, notes, citations, and animation:
[deck]

Audience, goal, duration, room/screen, remote use, pace, Q&A, and accessibility:
[setting]

Decision-critical facts, mandatory slides, brand rules, handout/appendix options, and edit authority:
[constraints]

Evaluate narrative load, number of ideas per slide, projected text, chart complexity, simultaneous visual and spoken demands, undefined terms, table density, repetition, transitions, timing, and accessibility. Distinguish necessary complexity from avoidable density. Cite exact slides and rank blockers, high-load risks, and minor issues. Do not use arbitrary word-count rules as the only evidence or solve overload by shrinking type, hiding limitations, or deleting critical denominators. Return: audience task model; slide-by-slide audit; keep/cut/move-to-notes/move-to-appendix/split recommendations; revised narrative and slide map; time reconciliation; and fidelity check.

Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.

From input to outcome

A worked example

See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result

Actual input

Presentation content: Slide 1: Quarterly service review—agenda with 9 bullets. Slide 2: table of 18 KPIs, four quarters, targets, RAG status, 9-point text. Notes read every row. Slide 3: three line charts (response time, resolution, backlog), each 12 months; title 'Performance'. Slide 4: 11 paragraphs describing five root causes plus a process diagram. Slide 5: customer survey with 71% positive (96/143 responses), night shift 50% (18/39), three quotations, and methodology. Slide 6: six recommended initiatives with cost, owner, timing, dependencies in a 24-cell table. Slide 7: decision request for funding initiatives 1 and 2; repeats all six descriptions. Each slide has a fade animation.
Audience and delivery setting: Executive committee must decide whether to fund initiatives 1 and 2. Eight-minute presentation plus five-minute Q&A on a large room screen and video call. One presenter. Audience has not seen the deck; needs service risk, evidence, cost, and decision. Minimum readable body size 24 pt.
Required content and edit authority: Slides 1 and 7 mandatory by template. Preserve the survey denominators/subgroup, KPI source references, costs and dependencies for initiatives 1/2, and uncertainty about root causes. Appendix allowed and circulated afterward. May split or cut within eight minutes; brand template fixed.

Example output

Audience task: understand the material service change, judge evidence and uncertainty, compare initiatives 1/2, then decide funding. The current deck asks them to decode 72 KPI cells, three charts, five causes, six initiatives, and repeated prose in eight minutes.

Blockers: slide 2 is unreadable at 9 pt and narration duplicates visual search; move the full table to appendix and show only decision-relevant KPI changes with readable source labels. Slide 4 carries five uncertain causes plus prose and diagram; split into “observed failure path” and “causes remain hypotheses,” or keep only the two causes relevant to initiatives 1/2. Slide 6 forces comparison of six options although only two are in the decision; move options 3–6 to appendix and make a two-column comparison preserving cost/dependencies.

High load: slide 3 needs assertion title and one highlighted trend; other charts move to appendix. Slide 5 keeps 71% (96/143) and night shift 50% (18/39) as two visual callouts; move quotations/method to notes/appendix, but retain representativeness limit on slide. Slide 1 reduces to purpose, evidence path, decision—not nine bullets. Remove decorative fades if they delay access.

Revised 7-slide map/time: 1 purpose/decision 0:30; 2 service risk 1:15; 3 relevant trend 1:00; 4 evidence and root-cause uncertainty 1:15; 5 customer subgroup evidence 1:00; 6 initiatives 1/2 comparison 1:30; 7 exact decision/conditions 1:00; 0:30 buffer. Fidelity: required denominators, sources, costs, dependencies, and uncertainty remain; detail moves to appendix rather than tiny text.

Why this works

1
Audience-task analysis judges load by what viewers must compare or remember, not merely by word count.
2
Keep-cut-move choices preserve evidence while assigning it to the right delivery channel.

Check the result

Are overload findings tied to audience tasks, timing, and exact slide content?
Were limitations, denominators, sources, and decision-critical details preserved?
Does the revised slide map fit the delivery time without tiny text or rushed narration?

More ways to explore