Write a complete slide story and speaker notes from source facts

ILLUSTRATIVE AUTHORED OUTPUT
Written for this guide; no consumer AI execution or real-world trial is claimed.

SIX-SLIDE PRESENTATION SCRIPT — NO DECK RENDERED

SLIDE 1
Title: Choose the next comparison, not a final format
Body: Two afternoons. Two formats. One decision today: what should we compare next?
Proposed visual: two labeled text boxes, A: wall-mounted and B: freestanding, beneath a single question “Next comparison?” No invented photos.
Speaker notes: “We have observations from two separate afternoons, using the same six prints. Our task is to choose the next comparison to run. We have not chosen a final display format, and these observations are not a controlled test of why visitors responded differently. I will show the counts, the important limits, and one proposal for the group to discuss.”
Sources: F1, F5; decision framing from the request.

SLIDE 2
Title: The prints stayed the same; several other things changed
Body: Both: six original prints. A: wall-mounted, 10 mm labels. B: freestanding, 18 mm labels. Different afternoons and visitor groups.
Proposed visual: a two-column comparison card with these exact four comparison rows: prints, mounting, label height and visitor group. Mark the group row “different”; do not invent demographics.
Speaker notes: “Using the same six prints gives us one shared feature. However, mounting, label height, afternoon and visitor group differed. We therefore changed more than one thing between A and B. The label measurements describe the supplied setup; they do not establish readability or accessibility. Keep these differences in mind while we look at the visitor observations.”
Sources: F1, F4, F5.

SLIDE 3
Title: Keep each count attached to its own visitor total
Body: A: 8 of 12 visitors used slips; 5 of 12 asked for clearer labels. B: 6 of 10 used slips; 1 of 10 asked for clearer labels.
Proposed visual: two aligned cards labeled A (12 visitors) and B (10 visitors). Each card shows the two count statements verbatim. Do not add the two measures together; their overlap is unknown.
Speaker notes: “A had twelve visitors and B had ten. Eight and six respectively used comment slips. Five visitors in A and one in B asked for clearer labels. These are two separate measures, and we do not know how they overlap. A larger raw count does not automatically mean a higher proportion, so each statement retains its own visitor total. We are describing these groups, not estimating an effect for all future visitors.”
Sources: F2, F3; unknown overlap is not supplied.

SLIDE 4
Title: Fewer label requests do not establish a cause
Body: Observed: 5 of 12 in A; 1 of 10 in B asked for clearer labels. Not established: that larger labels or freestanding mounting caused the difference. No cost or accessibility testing is recorded in the supplied source.
Proposed visual: “Observed” and “Not established” panels with the exact text above; no causal arrow or winner badge.
Speaker notes: “The observed count of requests for clearer labels is lower in B. But the two visitor groups differ, and multiple setup features changed. We cannot attribute the difference to label size or mounting. The source also includes no cost or accessibility testing. Those are missing forms of evidence, not evidence that either format is cheap or accessible. Please carry these limitations with the counts rather than treating them as a footnote.”
Sources: F2–F5.

SLIDE 5
Title: Proposed next test: change label height only
Body: For approval: keep one mounting format, the same six prints and label wording fixed; compare 10 mm and 18 mm labels. Record visitor totals, slip use and clearer-label requests consistently. Decide the format and comparison procedure before running it.
Proposed visual: two proposed condition cards identical except “10 mm” versus “18 mm”; a separate unfilled field reads “mounting and assignment procedure: group decision.”
Speaker notes: “My proposal is a comparison focused on label height. Keep the prints, wording and one mounting format fixed, then compare the two supplied heights. We still need the group to choose the mounting and a practical procedure for allocating or sequencing the conditions, including how to handle different visitors. Record the same measures in both conditions. This proposal narrows one question; it does not guarantee a causal result or replace a separate accessibility review.”
Sources: F1–F5 motivate the proposal; the design is a recommendation, not an observed or approved fact.

SLIDE 6
Title: Agree the question before committing to a format
Body: Decision requested: approve or revise the label-height comparison. Still to agree: mounting, comparison procedure, owner and timing. No final format, budget or outcome is approved by this script.
Proposed visual: a blank decision card with four labeled fields: comparison, mounting/procedure, owner, timing. Leave all decisions blank.
Speaker notes: “The choice now is whether this label-height comparison is the next useful question. If the group prefers a different question, we should state it just as clearly and identify what stays fixed. Before any trial, agree the procedure, an owner and timing. No one has been assigned by this script. We should record the decision and remaining limits rather than treating these two afternoons as a finished recommendation for a permanent display.”
Sources: request and F5; decision fields remain unfilled.

SOURCE-TO-CLAIM LEDGER
F1 → slides 1–2: two formats/afternoons and same six prints; slide 5 reuses six prints in a labeled proposal.
F2 → slides 3–4: A denominator 12, slip count 8, label-request count 5.
F3 → slides 3–4: B denominator 10, slip count 6, label-request count 1.
F4 → slides 2/5: heights 10/18 mm; slide 5 is future proposal.
F5 → slides 1/2/4 and notes: different groups, no causation established, no recorded cost/accessibility testing.
Request → slides 1/6: choose one next comparison; no decision made. Slides 5/6 recommendations and questions are labeled, not attributed as prior group commitments.

UNPERFORMED REHEARSAL CARD
Read slide 4 and its notes aloud to an adult unfamiliar with the source. Ask what caused the difference: the intended response is that this evidence does not establish a cause. Check all four count/denominator pairs against F2/F3. Read the full notes once and measure actual duration; none is claimed here. Later rendering requires visual/layout review. No slide file, chart render or audience trial has been produced.