Build a slide deck

Explore outline-first, source-grounded assistant, document-to-deck, and mixed workflows for clear, editable presentations.

Go to My experiment

Explore

What are the ways to do this?

Worked example brief: a five-slide volunteer orientation

Use one approved source packet to plan welcome, intake, safety boundaries, useful questions, and where to find help. Keep every factual claim traceable and every slide editable.

Notice: Which workflow protects the source meaning while producing a story a presenter can revise?

Try it with your own tools

We have provided a brief for you to try; we have not produced a finished example for this task.

What this shows: How to hold audience, source fidelity, editability, notes, citations, and accessibility steady across two feasible paths.

What it cannot show: The quality of any generated deck, current product capability, actual export fidelity, or audience comprehension.

This is a worked brief, not a published deck or hands-on product trial.
No tool performance, export quality, or audience response is claimed.
A real trial must preserve the source packet, prompts, corrections, output, and presentation context.

Approach map

Open any approach to inspect its starting material, human work, outputs, and sequence.

Outline first, then designShape the argument and slide jobs before choosing layouts or visuals.

Starts with: Audience and purpose · Approved sources · Time and slide limit
Main actions: Extract claims · Sequence one idea per slide · Draft notes · Build and review
Outputs: Editable deck · Outline, notes, and source record
Human work: Choose emphasis · Verify claims · Design readable slides · Rehearse timing
Useful when: Accuracy and presenter control matter · The material needs a clear argument

Fix the source packetRecord what may support the deck.
Give each slide one jobWrite the audience takeaway before layout.
Build editable slidesKeep text, notes, visuals, and citations correctable.
Test the presentationCheck timing, reading order, contrast, and speaker support.

Use an assistant for structure or draftsAsk for outlines, alternatives, or concise language, then verify and rebuild with human judgment.

Starts with: A bounded source packet · Explicit audience and constraints · A rule against unsupported claims
Main actions: Request a structured draft · Trace claims to sources · Reject or rewrite weak material · Move accepted content into an editable deck
Outputs: Candidate outline or draft · Verification and correction record
Human work: Protect source meaning · Choose the story · Correct omissions and inventions · Own the final design
Useful when: Several structures need quick exploration · The maker can verify every claim

Bound the requestSupply only permitted material and state what must not be invented.
Choose the assistant’s jobKeep the task narrow enough to inspect.
- Outline alternativesCompare structures: Judge sequence and omissions before prose.
- Language compressionVerify every sentence: Check meaning against the sources.
Rebuild the final deckUse editable, accessible slide components.

Convert a document, then repair the presentationTurn existing approved material into a first slide structure and treat it as a draft.

Starts with: An approved document · A clear presentation purpose · Permission to upload or process the file
Main actions: Extract a draft deck · Remove document-like density · Restore citations and notes · Repair hierarchy and pacing
Outputs: Draft slides · Editable presentation and source map
Human work: Choose what belongs on screen · Restore context · Check layout and export
Useful when: The source is stable and already organized · A draft can save assembly time without replacing review

Prepare the documentRemove private material and mark headings, claims, and source notes.
Create a draft structureTreat the conversion as a proposal.
Repair for presentingReduce density, restore evidence, add notes, and test accessibility.

Start with your intention

Use My experiment to note your audience, material, limits, equipment, and sharing restrictions. Every field is optional. “Try with our example” fills only an empty goal and constraints field.

Prompt · version 1

Investigate ways to build a slide deck

When you have approved source material but have not settled the story, assembly method, or delivery format.

Map presentation workflows before choosing a product.

Example: A repair café needs a five-slide volunteer orientation with speaker notes and traceable claims.

Show the full prompt

Full prompt

Research current novice-accessible tools for turning an owned, fact-checked outline and approved assets into an editable slide deck. Compare Microsoft PowerPoint with Copilot, Canva Magic Design, Gamma, and Google Slides with Gemini on input modes, editing, collaboration, export, source grounding, plan or availability limits, privacy and rights questions, and likely correction effort. Use only current official primary sources checked on 2026-09-18. Do not rank the tools universally or claim hands-on testing. Separate source-checked facts, analyst judgment, and remaining uncertainty, and propose a bounded comparison workflow.

The published prompt stays unchanged.

Source checked · 2026-09-18

Tools to investigate

Four current, novice-accessible deck tools were retained because each produces an editable result and represents a distinct practical setting: existing Microsoft work, visual template work, rapid web-first drafting, or Google Workspace collaboration. Availability and export fidelity must be checked for the user's actual account. This is a source-checked starting shortlist, not a ranking or a hands-on comparison.

This shortlist reflects the date above. Confirm current features, terms, pricing, privacy, exports, and accessibility before choosing.

A high-level workflow

Begin with an owned, fact-checked outline, audience, desired slide count, accessibility needs, and approved image sources.
Generate or format one draft, then verify every claim, number, quotation, image right, reading order, contrast choice, and speaker note.
Make one targeted revision and export to the real handoff format; inspect the exported deck in its destination app before choosing a workflow.

Microsoft PowerPoint with Copilot

Purpose and fit: People already working in Microsoft 365 who need a native PowerPoint draft from a prompt or owned source file and want to begin from an organization template.
How to explore it: Start from the approved PowerPoint template, give Copilot a bounded brief or referenced source, review the proposed structure, then refine the editable slides and speaker notes in PowerPoint.
Watch for: Copilot availability depends on subscription and organization settings. Microsoft says generated content needs human review; file permissions, image provenance, and single-language or reference-mode limitations still apply.

Sources checked

Create a new presentation with Copilot in PowerPoint

Canva Magic Design

Purpose and fit: A novice who wants several visual starting points, a template-rich editor, stock assets, and easy manual layout changes in one web workspace.
How to explore it: Provide the presentation type, audience, tone, key content, and approved media or Brand Kit; select a suitable generated template and replace or revise each element in Canva's editor.
Watch for: Suggested designs may include free, Pro, stock, or AI-generated assets with different use conditions. Account, language, region, team controls, and downstream export behavior need checking.

Sources checked

Use Magic Design to generate design templates

Gamma

Purpose and fit: Fast web-first structuring from a topic, pasted outline, imported document, URL, or existing deck, with easy reformatting and sharing.
How to explore it: Start with a rough idea, approved copy or an owned source document; review the generated structure, refine the cards manually or with AI, and test the intended export.
Watch for: Free-plan PDF and PPTX exports carry a Gamma badge. Fonts, table corners, and layout can change in PowerPoint or Google Slides, so exported files require visual inspection.

Sources checked

Google Slides with Gemini

Purpose and fit: Teams already collaborating in Google Workspace that want an editable deck, Drive references, optional web or Workspace sources, and outline approval before generation.
How to explore it: Give Gemini a bounded topic and goal, attach only approved Drive sources, inspect and revise the plan, then approve generation and finish the slides collaboratively.
Watch for: The feature requires an eligible plan and is currently documented as desktop and English only, with experiments access for some personal accounts. Source settings and feedback privacy need deliberate choices.

Sources checked

Generate presentations with Gemini in Google Slides

Decide

What matters for your project?

Use a few criteria and a separate must-have list. An unknown must-have remains unresolved.

Must-have

Source fidelity

Claims and quotations remain traceable to approved sources.

Acceptable: Every factual claim has a source note; unsupported additions are removed.

Must-have

Audience and story

The sequence helps this audience follow one purpose.

Acceptable: Each slide has one clear job and the full deck fits the delivery time.

Must-have

Editability

Text, visuals, notes, and citations can be corrected.

Acceptable: The maker retains an editable master in a usable format.

Must-have

Presentation accessibility

Reading order, contrast, text size, descriptions, and notes support use.

Acceptable: The deck passes a manual accessibility and rehearsal check.

Preference

Correction effort

Drafting and repair work are visible.

Acceptable: Prompts, retries, verification, edits, time, and cost are recorded.

AI reported

What an AI response says. Follow the sources before relying on it.

Source checked

What an opened source states. This does not prove product performance.

We tested

What RS observed in a dated, bounded trial.

Still uncertain

What is unknown, unverified, or outside the trial.

Prompt · version 1.0

Shape slide-deck criteria one question at a time

Before drafting slides or when a polished theme is distracting from the story and evidence.

Turn presentation intent and source material into concrete criteria.

Example: The orientation must fit five slides, keep every claim traceable, and leave speaker notes editable.

Show the full prompt

Full prompt

Interview me about a slide-deck project. Ask one useful question at a time and accept “I don't know yet.” Do not begin with product names.

Learn the audience, purpose, presentation setting, time and slide limits, approved source material, required claims, speaker role, visuals or charts, notes, citations, collaboration, accessibility, editability, export needs, deadline, budget, privacy, and rights.

When you have enough, propose a short set of criteria for me to revise. For each criterion, describe what acceptable output looks like. Separate must-haves from preferences and keep unknowns visible. Include a source-verification pass, a rehearsal and accessibility check, a “before you pay or upload” check, and two feasible workflow paths. Do not score tools or choose a universal winner.

The published prompt stays unchanged.

Prompt · version 1.0

Compare two deck workflows without rewarding polish alone

After creating two structures from the same source packet or revising one structure once.

Compare complete deck paths on meaning, evidence, editability, and presentation use.

Example: Compare a manual outline with an assistant-supported five-slide draft.

Show the full prompt

Full prompt

Help me compare two slide-deck workflows using my approved source packet, audience, slide limit, delivery time, and criteria.

For every criterion, separate what a dated source claims, what a dated practical trial tested, what I observed, and what remains unknown. Check every factual claim against the packet. Include story and audience fit, omissions, unsupported additions, speaker notes, citations, accessibility, editability, exports, privacy, rights, correction work, elapsed time, and cost.

Do not award points for visual polish by itself, convert unknowns into a score, or choose a winner. Explain uncontrolled differences. If only one workflow is available, compare its first structure with one deliberate reordering and label the weaker evidence.

End by asking whether I should continue, revise the story, verify a claim, change approach, simplify the deck, or stop.

The published prompt stays unchanged.

Experiment

Build two outlines from the same source packet

Compare an outline-first workflow with an assistant-supported draft while keeping facts, audience, and delivery time fixed.

Ready-to-use brief

Plan a five-slide orientation for new repair-café volunteers: welcome, how intake works, safety boundaries, how to ask useful questions, and where to find help. Include speaker notes and a source note for every factual claim.

Input

Use one short, approved source packet containing the event purpose, intake steps, electrical-safety boundary, accessibility notes, and contact route. Do not add facts that are absent from the packet.

Limit

Spend no more than 45 minutes on each path. Stop before polishing animations or brand decoration; this trial concerns structure, source fidelity, editability, and presentation usefulness.

Path 1

Outline the five-slide story manually, then build editable slides from that outline.

Path 2

Ask an assistant to propose a five-slide structure from the same packet, verify every claim, then rebuild or revise it in an editable slide tool.

Only one candidate? Create one outline, ask for one deliberate reordering for a different audience, and compare factual preservation and revision effort.

Define success before you begin

Define the audience, delivery time, and required source packet.
Preserve the original sources and record the exact prompt or outline.
Build both structures without adding unsupported facts.
Verify claims, reading order, speaker notes, contrast, and editability.
Record corrections, elapsed effort, exports, and remaining unknowns.
Choose a next step without treating one trial as a product ranking.

Observation questions

Can every factual claim be traced to the source packet?
Does each slide have one clear job for this audience?
Are text, charts, notes, and citations editable?
What did the human need to correct, remove, or rewrite?
Can the deck be presented accessibly and exported in the needed format?

What would you do next? Continue, change an approach, check a claim, try a simpler method, or stop.

Recorded on 2026-09-18

We ran the landscape prompt

Current official-source comparison of PowerPoint with Copilot, Canva Magic Design, Gamma, and Google Slides with Gemini for a bounded novice deck workflow.

Read the prompt, response, sources, evidence labels, limits, and next question.

Private browser-local notes

My experiment

Plan, compare, and record what you learn. These notes do not sync across devices.