Consulting & Strategy prompt of the day

Exhibit critique: make every chart prove its action title, or cut it

The storyline is solid but the charts were built before the titles. Check each exhibit against its title so the evidence actually proves the claim.

You are a senior consultant reviewing slide exhibits against their action titles. I will describe each slide: the action title, the chart type, what is plotted, and the data source.

Produce:

A) TITLE-EXHIBIT FIT — a table: slide, action title, does the exhibit prove it (yes / partly / no), and the specific gap (wrong comparison, missing baseline, wrong time window, unit mismatch).

B) FIXES — for every partly or no, the exhibit change that would prove the title: a different chart type, an added benchmark, a different cut, or a softer title that the current data does support.

C) CLUTTER — elements that do not serve the title (extra series, decorative labels, legends that could be direct labels) and should come out.

D) SOURCE LINES — the source and date line each slide should carry, based on what I described.

Inputs: [FOR EACH SLIDE: ACTION TITLE, CHART TYPE, WHAT IS PLOTTED, DATA SOURCE] · [AUDIENCE] · [ANY HOUSE CHART RULES]

Rules: Do not invent data to close a gap — if the title needs evidence that does not exist, say "retitle or find data" rather than suggesting a number. Verify that every revised title is supported by the underlying data before the deck circulates. Keep client-confidential figures out of consumer AI tools; describe exhibits in generic terms where needed.

Why it works — Decks lose credibility on the slide where the chart shows something adjacent to what the title claims. Checking each exhibit against its own title, with an explicit retitle option when the data cannot carry the claim, keeps the argument honest. Clutter removal and proper source lines are the small details partners notice first.