I want you to create a print-ready 16:9 slide deck. Here's what I need: - About: Baltra Foods (plant-based dairy, Germany) is considering entering the UK market and needs a go/no-go recommendation with an entry strategy. Facts: Baltra EU revenue 2025: €48M, growing 17% p.a. UK plant-based dairy market: £310M, 11% CAGR. UK competitor shares: Oatson 34%, Milkfield 22%, Verdana 9%, rest fragmented. Entry capex estimate: £6.5M. Target: 4% UK share within 24 months. Retail pipeline: 2,400 doors in year one via two grocery chains. Three entry modes under discussion: partner with a UK co-packer, DTC-first launch, or full retail launch. - Audience: Board investment committee - Tone: Crisp, executive - Language: English - Must include: An explicit recommendation up front; market sizing; competitor comparison; the three entry modes compared against criteria; financials with payback; top risks with mitigations; next steps with dates. Do any research or thinking this needs, then build it. Use as many slides as the content needs. HOW TO BUILD IT — this is plain authoring, not a coding job. Write ONE self-contained HTML file by editing the example below, and return it. Do NOT reach for a slide library (PptxGenJS or similar), an artifact/deck builder, a headless browser, or any script to generate, render, export or preview it — unPaper converts the HTML to PowerPoint and renders the preview itself when I paste it back. Work in three passes. PASS 0 — the brief. If a brief is given above, or we have been developing the topic in this conversation, start from that. If neither exists, settle the brief yourself before anything else: name the topic, the audience and the ONE message the deck must land, then do whatever thinking or research that needs. Only if there is genuinely no topic anywhere, ask me for one instead of building. PASS 1 — the storyline. Draft the deck as a list of slide titles so it has a spine. For an argument or recommendation make each title a full-sentence finding (an "action title") that, read top to bottom, delivers the whole case — answer first, next steps last; for a narrative or teaching deck a shorter title is fine. One idea per slide; split a slide that carries two. PASS 2 — the slides. For each title ask: what is the most effective way to SHOW this idea? The example locks the STYLE — palette, type, spacing, chrome — never the structure. Don't copy its slide order or density; reuse one layout across parallel slides or skip it entirely, but never use a grid or block just to tick it off — a deck that uses each layout exactly once reads as a tour, not an argument. Don't converge on the obvious arrangement either: two runs of the same brief should not produce the same deck. Then build to your ability; every rung yields a complete, convertible deck: • Floor (any model): put your content into the example's own layouts. Even titles, short paragraphs and lists make a valid deck. • Standard: pick the element that fits each idea — statement (one bold line) · agenda · two-column split (claim beside evidence) · comparison table · KPI stat row · chart · 2×2 matrix · process flow · org/hierarchy · timeline/roadmap · pull quote · callout · icon-led list · cards · divider · closing — and vary it across the deck. Give most slides one visual anchor in the template's idiom (a small inline-SVG icon, an oversized numeral, an arrow, a rule or tinted panel): a deck of nothing but text in boxes reads unfinished. • Full (if you can reason): treat the template as a design language and compose beyond the catalogue — a bespoke diagram of THIS content's actual structure, an unexpected grid, a full-bleed moment, a free canvas (keep the slide's header/footer frame, compose the open middle yourself). Give the deck at least ONE signature slide whose composition appears nowhere in the example. Freedom of arrangement, not of technology: build from convertible primitives — text, bordered/filled/gradient boxes, inline SVG, a real , a data-unpaper-chart — and even an invented layout lands as native, editable PowerPoint objects; exotic CSS flattens to a picture. THE CONTRACT — the file is machine-converted to PowerPoint, so each rule is load-bearing: 1. Copy the example's

Make the argument land

A consulting deck is an argument, not decoration: lead with the answer, prove it beside the claim, close with the decision. This deck is built that way — and shows you how.

02 Part one
Part one

The case, in four moves

Answer first, then the evidence, the options, and the decision.

02 / 15
03 Horizontal logic

Lead every slide with the answer, not the label

A topic label

"Q3 revenue"

Tells the reader nothing. They have to dig for the point.

An action title

"Revenue grew 18%, carried by enterprise"

Read the titles alone, top to bottom — the whole story is there.

03 / 15
04 In one slide
Executive summary

Buy the platform and partner on delivery — faster, cheaper and lower-risk

  • 01

    Building in-house takes nine months and carries the most risk for the least control gained.

  • 02

    A platform ships in three months and covers 80% of the requirement out of the box.

  • 03

    A delivery partner closes the gap with no permanent headcount commitment.

04 / 15
05 Evidence

Put the evidence right beside the claim

A claim earns belief when the proof sits next to it, not three slides later.

  • ·The text states the so-what
  • ·The chart carries the number
  • ·One reads the other

Source: illustrative.

FY22FY23FY24
05 / 15
06 Evidence

Pair two lenses when one chart cannot carry the point

Different chart types, one message each — the title states the combined so-what.

Revenue share by segment
Enterprise · 54% Mid-market · 31% SMB · 15%
Growth by segment, % YoY
EnterpriseMid-marketSMB

Source: illustrative.

06 / 15
07 Compare

Make every comparison a real table

OptionCostTimeRisk
Build in-houseHigh9 moHigh
Buy a platformMedium3 moLow
PartnerLow6 moMedium

Source: illustrative estimates.

07 / 15
08 The numbers

Anchor the story in three numbers

18%
Revenue growth, year on year.
3.2x
Enterprise ARR since FY22.
−40%
Cost to serve, after automation.

Source: illustrative.

08 / 15
09 The quarter

Review the quarter on one screen, one tile per question

Revenue, €m
Q1Q2Q3Q4
NPS trend
Q1Q2Q3Q4
Cost mix
People · 62% Tools · 23% Other · 15%
−40%
Cost to serve since FY22 — the number the board asked about.
09 / 15
10 Drivers

Group your reasons so they don’t overlap

Demand

More buyers, larger contracts.

Delivery

Automation cut the cost to serve.

Pricing

A tier the market accepted.

Three drivers, no overlap — that is what MECE means.

10 / 15
11 The plan

Hold four parallel moves on one screen

Workstream 1

Stabilise the core

Fix churn in the two at-risk accounts before anything else.

Workstream 2

Price the new tier

Launch the mid-market tier the pilot validated.

Workstream 3

Automate delivery

Roll the onboarding automation to every region.

Workstream 4

Staff the gap

Two hires in customer engineering by Q3.

Four cards, one glance — use a 2×2 of cards when the moves are parallel, a flow when they are sequential.

11 / 15
12 How it works

Run it as four steps, not one big bang

Step 1

Diagnose

Step 2

Pilot

Step 3

Scale

Step 4

Embed

12 / 15
13 So what
The point

A chart is not an argument. Say the so-what out loud — what should the reader now believe, and do, because of this number?

13 / 15
14 Open canvas

Free canvas — keep the header and footer, then compose any layout you like in this space. Text, boxes, inline SVG, a table or a chart all still convert to native, editable objects.

14 / 15
15 Decision
Next steps

Close with the decision and the first step

Recommendation

Buy the platform; partner on delivery.

First step

Shortlist three vendors by month-end.

15 / 15
1 / 6 Save a PDF on a computer
```