# Slide Template Library (Assertion-Evidence Style) > **Rule**: All slide headings must be **assertion sentences** (complete, testable claims), not topic labels. Body content provides **evidence** (charts, tables, diagrams, bullet points). Keep to **3-5 bullet points maximum** per slide. Place data sources in the footer (bottom-right). --- ## Core Slide Templates ### 1. Cover Slide **Purpose**: Introduce the main conclusion/proposition upfront. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Main Conclusion as Assertion Sentence] SUBHEADING: [Context, Occasion, or Target Audience] FOOTER: [Date] | [Presenter Name/Organization] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Mastering Three Variables Unlocks Consistently Great Coffee at Home SUBHEADING: A Practical Guide for Coffee Enthusiasts FOOTER: October 2025 | Coffee Workshop Series ``` --- ### 2. Table of Contents **Purpose**: Show the roadmap (3-5 chapters matching first-level reasons). **Structure**: ``` HEADING: Roadmap / What We'll Cover CHAPTERS: 1. [First Reason/Chapter] 2. [Second Reason/Chapter] 3. [Third Reason/Chapter] 4. [Optional Fourth] 5. [Optional Fifth] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Roadmap 1. Grind Size Controls Extraction Rate 2. Water Temperature Affects Flavor Balance 3. Brew Time Determines Strength 4. Simple Equipment Upgrades Improve Consistency ``` --- ### 3. Problem Statement (Problem Slide) **Purpose**: Assert why the current situation is unsatisfactory or why action is needed now. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about the problem's severity or impact] EVIDENCE: - Key metric or statistic showing problem scale - Real-world consequence or example - Visual: trend chart (decline/growth) or comparison table SOURCE: [Data citation in footer] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Inconsistent home coffee wastes premium beans and disappoints drinkers daily EVIDENCE: - 68% of home brewers report frequent "bad cup" experiences (Source: 2024 Coffee Survey) - Average household wastes 2 lbs of beans/year due to poor technique - Visual: Bar chart showing #1 complaint: "Can't replicate good results" SOURCE: National Coffee Association, 2024 Home Brewing Survey ``` --- ### 4. Opportunity / Goal (Aspiration Slide) **Purpose**: Assert what success looks like or what can be achieved. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about the achievable outcome] EVIDENCE: - Quantified benefit or goal metric - Success example or case study - Visual: target state diagram or before/after comparison SOURCE: [Citation if applicable] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Mastering three simple variables delivers cafe-quality coffee at one-tenth the cost EVIDENCE: - Home brewing cost: $0.50/cup vs. cafe $5/cup - 90% satisfaction rate with proper technique (vs. 32% without) - Visual: Cost comparison bar chart + satisfaction curve SOURCE: Coffee Economics Institute, 2025 ``` --- ### 5. Solution Overview (Three-Part Solution) **Purpose**: Assert that a specific approach (typically 3 components) solves the problem. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about the solution's effectiveness] COMPONENTS: A. [Component 1 - brief phrase] B. [Component 2 - brief phrase] C. [Component 3 - brief phrase] VISUAL: Three-box diagram or process flow ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Three brewing variables—grind size, water temp, and time—control every cup's quality COMPONENTS: A. Grind Size → controls extraction rate B. Water Temperature → affects flavor compounds C. Brew Time → determines strength & balance VISUAL: Three interconnected gears diagram ``` --- ### 6. Evidence Slide (Type 1: Comparison) **Purpose**: Assert that one option is superior/different from another. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion stating the comparison result] EVIDENCE: - Table or side-by-side comparison (A vs B) - Key differentiators highlighted - Visual: comparison table, bar chart (grouped/stacked), or Venn diagram SOURCE: [Citation] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Burr grinders produce uniform particles, while blade grinders create inconsistent sizes EVIDENCE: - Burr: 85% particles within 5% of target size - Blade: Only 40% particles within target range; 30% "fines" that over-extract - Visual: Histogram comparing particle size distribution SOURCE: Coffee Research Institute, 2024 ``` --- ### 7. Evidence Slide (Type 2: Trend Over Time) **Purpose**: Assert a trend or change over time. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about the trend direction/magnitude] EVIDENCE: - Time-series data points - Annotation of key events or inflection points - Visual: line chart, area chart, or combo chart SOURCE: [Citation] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Optimal extraction occurs between 195-205°F, with quality dropping sharply outside this range EVIDENCE: - Peak flavor score at 200°F: 8.7/10 - Below 190°F: sour, under-extracted (score 4.2/10) - Above 210°F: bitter, over-extracted (score 3.8/10) - Visual: Line chart with shaded optimal zone SOURCE: Specialty Coffee Association Temperature Study, 2023 ``` --- ### 8. Evidence Slide (Type 3: Process / Steps) **Purpose**: Assert that following a sequence leads to a result. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about the process outcome] STEPS: 1. [Step 1 - action verb + brief description] 2. [Step 2] 3. [Step 3] 4. [Step 4] VISUAL: Flowchart, numbered diagram, or timeline ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Four simple steps ensure consistent pour-over coffee every time STEPS: 1. Weigh 20g coffee, grind to medium-fine (sand texture) 2. Heat water to 200°F, wet filter to remove paper taste 3. Bloom for 30 seconds with 40g water, then pour in circles to 320g total 4. Finish brew at 3:00-3:30 minutes VISUAL: Four-panel illustrated timeline ``` --- ### 9. Evidence Slide (Type 4: Data Breakdown / Composition) **Purpose**: Assert how parts contribute to a whole. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about the composition or breakdown] EVIDENCE: - Percentage breakdown by category - Contribution of each component - Visual: stacked bar/area chart, treemap, or waterfall chart SOURCE: [Citation] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Coffee flavor compounds extract in three phases, with sugars peaking at 2 minutes EVIDENCE: - Acids: 30% extracted in first 60 sec - Sugars: 50% extracted at 90-150 sec (peak flavor) - Bitter compounds: 20% extracted after 180 sec (avoid over-extraction) - Visual: Stacked area chart showing compound % over time SOURCE: Coffee Chemistry Lab, UC Davis, 2024 ``` --- ### 10. Risk & Mitigation **Purpose**: Assert that identified risks are manageable with specific actions. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion that risks can be controlled/mitigated] RISKS & MITIGATIONS: - Risk 1: [Brief description] → Mitigation: [Action] - Risk 2: [Brief description] → Mitigation: [Action] - Risk 3: [Brief description] → Mitigation: [Action] VISUAL: Risk matrix (likelihood × impact) or mitigation table ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Common brewing pitfalls are easily avoided with simple adjustments RISKS & MITIGATIONS: - Bitter coffee → Reduce water temp to 195°F or shorten brew time by 30 sec - Weak coffee → Increase coffee dose by 2g or extend brew time by 20 sec - Sour coffee → Raise water temp to 205°F or use finer grind VISUAL: Troubleshooting flowchart ``` --- ### 11. Case Study / Example **Purpose**: Assert that a real-world example demonstrates the approach's effectiveness. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about what the case demonstrates] CASE DETAILS: - Context: [Who, what, when] - Challenge: [Problem faced] - Action: [Solution applied] - Result: [Quantified outcome] VISUAL: Before/after comparison or result metrics SOURCE: [Citation or attribution] ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Adjusting grind size alone improved home brewer satisfaction from 40% to 85% CASE DETAILS: - Context: 50-person home brewer cohort, 4-week trial - Challenge: Inconsistent flavor, 40% satisfaction baseline - Action: Switched from blade to burr grinder, calibrated grind size per method - Result: Satisfaction rose to 85%, "bad cup" rate dropped from 32% to 6% VISUAL: Before/after bar chart + satisfaction curve SOURCE: Coffee Education Center, Seattle, 2024 ``` --- ### 12. Roadmap / Timeline **Purpose**: Assert that a phased approach achieves milestones on schedule. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Assertion about timeline feasibility or sequence] PHASES: - Phase 1: [Milestone] by [Date] - Phase 2: [Milestone] by [Date] - Phase 3: [Milestone] by [Date] - Phase 4: [Milestone] by [Date] VISUAL: Gantt chart, timeline, or milestone roadmap ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Four-week progression builds brewing skills from beginner to confident home barista PHASES: - Week 1: Master grind size (try 3 grind settings, pick best) - Week 2: Dial in water temperature (test 195°F, 200°F, 205°F) - Week 3: Optimize brew time (adjust by 15-sec increments) - Week 4: Combine variables, replicate best cup 3× consistently VISUAL: Four-week timeline with icons ``` --- ### 13. Conclusion & Call to Action (CTA) **Purpose**: Restate the main conclusion and prompt immediate action. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Restatement of main conclusion] CTA: [Specific action with deadline/next step] SUPPORTING POINTS (optional): - Recap key benefit 1 - Recap key benefit 2 - Recap key benefit 3 VISUAL: Summary icon or "Next Steps" checklist ``` **Example**: ``` HEADING: Mastering grind, temp, and time transforms every home cup into a cafe-quality experience CTA: Pick one technique from today's session and try it with your next brew KEY TAKEAWAYS: - Grind size controls extraction rate—match it to your method - Water temp 195-205°F unlocks balanced flavors - Brew time fine-tunes strength and prevents bitterness VISUAL: Three-point checklist with icons ``` --- ### 14. Backup Slides **Purpose**: Provide detailed data, methodology, or FAQs without cluttering main deck. **Structure**: ``` HEADING: [Topic or Question] CONTENT: Detailed table, extended data, formulas, references NOTE: "Backup slide—not presented, available for Q&A" ``` **Example Backup Slides**: - Detailed brewing ratio chart (1:15 to 1:18) - Equipment comparison matrix (10 grinder models) - Troubleshooting guide (problem → likely cause → fix) - Methodology: How we measured extraction % and flavor scores - References & Further Reading --- ## Micro-Templates (Quick Patterns for Specific Data Types) ### A. Comparison (A vs B) | Feature | Option A | Option B | Winner | |---------|----------|----------|--------| | Cost | $X | $Y | A/B | | Speed | Fast | Slow | A | | Quality | Good | Excellent | B | **Heading Example**: "Option B delivers superior quality despite higher upfront cost" --- ### B. Pyramid Summary (Key Takeaways) ``` MAIN POINT ├── Supporting Point 1 │ ├── Evidence 1a │ └── Evidence 1b ├── Supporting Point 2 │ ├── Evidence 2a │ └── Evidence 2b └── Supporting Point 3 ├── Evidence 3a └── Evidence 3b ``` --- ### C. Process (4 Steps) ``` 1️⃣ [Step 1] → 2️⃣ [Step 2] → 3️⃣ [Step 3] → 4️⃣ [Step 4] → ✅ Result ``` --- ### D. KPI Dashboard ``` ┌─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┐ │ Metric 1 │ Metric 2 │ Metric 3 │ │ 85% ↑ │ $1.2M ↓ │ 4.2/5 → │ │ vs. 78% LY │ vs. $1.5M │ flat │ └─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┘ ``` **Heading Example**: "Customer satisfaction rose 7 points while costs dropped 20%" --- ### E. Geographic / Regional Distribution **Visual**: Choropleth map or bar chart by region **Heading Example**: "West Coast accounts for 60% of premium coffee sales" --- ### F. Funnel (Conversion Process) ``` Stage 1: 1000 visitors ↓ 40% convert Stage 2: 400 sign-ups ↓ 25% convert Stage 3: 100 purchases ``` **Heading Example**: "10% end-to-end conversion beats industry average by 3 points" --- ### G. Pareto (80/20) **Visual**: Bar chart (descending) + cumulative line overlay **Heading Example**: "Top 3 issues account for 80% of customer complaints" --- ### H. Sensitivity / Scenario Analysis | Scenario | Assumption 1 | Assumption 2 | Result | |----------|--------------|--------------|--------| | Best Case | High | Low | $500K | | Base Case | Medium | Medium | $300K | | Worst Case | Low | High | $100K | **Heading Example**: "Base case ROI of $300K remains positive even in worst-case scenario" --- ### I. Cost Structure (Waterfall) ``` Starting Value: $1000 - Cost A: -$200 - Cost B: -$150 - Cost C: -$100 + Revenue: +$600 = Final Value: $1150 ``` **Visual**: Waterfall chart showing cumulative impact --- ### J. Contribution (Stacked Bar/Area) **Visual**: Stacked bar or area chart showing each component's contribution to total **Heading Example**: "Product A contributes 55% of total revenue despite being only 30% of units sold" --- ## Template Selection Decision Tree **Use this decision tree to pick the right template**: 1. **Is this the first or last slide?** - First → Cover Slide (Template 1) - Last → Conclusion & CTA (Template 13) 2. **Are you introducing the structure?** - Yes → Table of Contents (Template 2) 3. **Are you explaining why something matters?** - Problem → Problem Statement (Template 3) - Opportunity → Opportunity/Goal (Template 4) 4. **Are you presenting the solution approach?** - Yes → Solution Overview (Template 5) 5. **Are you showing evidence?** - Comparing options → Comparison (Template 6) - Showing trend → Trend Over Time (Template 7) - Explaining process → Process/Steps (Template 8) - Breaking down data → Data Breakdown (Template 9) 6. **Are you addressing concerns?** - Yes → Risk & Mitigation (Template 10) 7. **Are you showing proof?** - Yes → Case Study (Template 11) 8. **Are you showing timeline?** - Yes → Roadmap/Timeline (Template 12) 9. **Is this extra detail for Q&A?** - Yes → Backup Slides (Template 14) --- ## Best Practices 1. **Consistency**: Use the same template for similar slide types throughout the deck 2. **Hierarchy**: Maintain consistent visual hierarchy (heading > subheading > body > footer) 3. **White Space**: Don't fill every pixel—leave breathing room (see STYLE-GUIDE.md) 4. **One Idea**: Each slide conveys exactly one testable assertion 5. **Evidence-First**: Body content supports the heading assertion with visuals/data, not long text 6. **Accessibility**: All templates must meet WCAG AA contrast requirements (see STYLE-GUIDE.md) --- **Next Steps**: Once you've selected templates for all slides, proceed to Stage 4 (Evidence & Charts) in WORKFLOW.md.