Six phases. From problem
to rendered slides.
Each phase builds on the previous one. None can be skipped. The system won't let you.
← Back to overviewPhase 1
Problem Structuring
You structure the problem before you structure the deck. Issue Tree, MECE, Hard Gates. Every assumption gets tagged.
Your challenge
You get a briefing and the reflex kicks in: open PowerPoint, start building. But the briefing doesn't tell you who sits in the room, what's at stake, or which question actually needs answering.
Slide 1 stands. Slide 2 stands. Slide 7 contradicts slide 3. The partner says "the red thread is missing" and you start over.
What happens in this phase
You answer four Hard Gates: Topic, Audience, Decision, Constraints. No evasive answers accepted. Then you decompose the topic into an Issue Tree that is mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive, and prioritized by impact.
Every claim gets an evidence tag: [FACT] with source, [INFERENCE] with reasoning, [RISK] with causal chain, or [MISSING] with consequence stated. When the system finds contradictions between your inputs, it stops and asks you to resolve them.
The principle
A deck without problem understanding is decoration. The structured analysis forces you to actually penetrate the topic before presenting it. Prioritization keeps you from telling everything when you should be telling what matters.
No other tool makes this step mandatory. The industry has been skipping it for decades, even though every partner knows this is where most decks fall apart.
Phase 2
Narrative (SCQA)
You run your story through SCQA. Situation. Complication. Question. Answer. One governing thought in a single sentence.
Your challenge
You have content but no thread. Slides stand next to each other instead of building on each other. The audience listens but feels no urgency.
What happens in this phase
You build a narrative with four elements: What everyone in the room already knows (Situation). Why the status quo no longer holds (Complication). The question that necessarily follows (Question). And the core message of the entire deck in one sentence, the Governing Thought.
The system validates the logical chain: S must be indisputable. C must create urgency. Q must follow necessarily from S+C. A must directly answer Q. If the Answer is evasive or too broad, you don't move forward.
The principle
People follow stories, not bullet lists. SCQA creates the "why now?" moment that captures attention. The Governing Thought is the one sentence your audience should be able to repeat after the meeting. Everything else in the deck supports that sentence.
Most consultants know the theory. Few apply it consistently because it takes discipline. The phase-lock handles that for you: your narrative has to be logically sound before you can move on.
Phase 3
Storyline (Pyramid)
You build the Pyramid. Governing Thought on top. Arguments below. Every branch MECE. Every claim evidence-tagged.
Your challenge
You have a core message but don't know in what order to argue. Should the strongest point come first or last? How many slides does it need? And where are the gaps in your argumentation?
What happens in this phase
You build a pyramidal argument structure: Governing Thought on top. Three to five main arguments below, each supported by evidence points. Each main argument becomes a slide. Every supporting point gets tagged: fact, inference, risk, or missing.
The structure is validated against Minto's rules: each Dot supports the Governing Thought (vertical), Dots at the same level are MECE (horizontal), no orphans (minimum 2 children per node), max 7 points per level. Then a Title-Read-Through test: read only the main statements in sequence. Does a coherent story emerge?
The principle
Top-down arguing instead of bottom-up telling. The audience hears the answer first, then the reasoning. And every claim is marked along the way. What is a fact? What is a hypothesis? What's still missing? You see the gaps in your argument before anyone else does.
Slide generators produce slides. Rigon produces an argument structure that has been checked for logic and evidence before the first pixel exists.
Phase 4
Ghost Deck
Action Titles. Slide types. Data specifications. Wireframes. The Horizontal Flow Test. The alignment tool before design begins.
Your challenge
The argument stands, but now you need to decide: Which slide becomes a chart? Which a framework? What goes in the headline? And where does the data come from?
What happens in this phase
You create a skeleton deck. Every slide gets an Action Title (a specific insight in max 10 words, not a description), a slide type (table, chart, subtitle, framework, or visual), a data specification with concrete data points, and a wireframe.
"Market analysis" is not an Action Title. "Variable costs exceed fixed costs for the first time" is. The Horizontal Flow Test reads only the titles in sequence. If no coherent story emerges, the structure needs work. This is the alignment moment: partners, clients, or colleagues give feedback before a single minute goes into design.
The principle
Action Titles force clarity. If you can't say in ten words what a slide states, you probably don't know it yourself yet. The Ghost Deck flips the normal workflow: "What do I say?" comes before "How do I show it?"
Every slide specifies exactly which data it needs and where the gaps are. A clearly marked [MISSING] with its consequence stated is more honest than a made-up number.
Phase 5
Review & Dry Run
Adversarial jury. Simulated presentation. Speaker notes. Q&A preparation. Your deck gets stress-tested before the boardroom does it.
The adversarial review
Three jury roles, tailored to your audience. An ROI Skeptic, an Execution Pragmatist, a Strategy Challenger. Each gives a verdict: what works, greatest weakness, open question. Then the conflicts between jurors get identified. Where do speed and quality clash? Where ROI and risk?
From the conflict comes the synthesis: three prioritized change recommendations. Plus a full evidence audit. Is every claim tagged? Every number sourced? And a Kill-Metric: the earliest hard indicator of failure, with an anti-gaming guard built in.
The dry run
The system simulates your presentation. Slide by slide. It writes what the presenter would say, checks if the substance holds, tests whether transitions work and timing adds up. Then it switches perspective and becomes the audience: Did I understand the visual immediately? Did the message land? Was the evidence convincing? Do I want to act?
What you get: finished speaker notes grounded in the argumentation. A Q&A preparation with the toughest anticipated questions. And a diagnosis that traces problems back to their root. If slide 6 doesn't work, the system tells you whether it's slide 6 or a thinking error from Phase 1.
The principle
A review where everyone nods is not a review. The value is in the conflict between the jurors. They actively look for the weakness in your argument. And the Dry Run tests something that no document review can test: does the deck actually work when a human stands up and presents it?
Think of it as a simulated board meeting plus a dress rehearsal, before the real thing happens. Most presentation tools check formatting. This one checks whether your argument holds.
Phase 6
Render
Slides auto-rendered from the tested structure. Every chart from specified data. Every title from a validated argument.
Your challenge
The argument is tested, the quality review is done, the speaker notes are ready. But you still don't have finished slides. Normally, someone would now spend hours turning wireframes and data specs into actual presentations.
What happens in this phase
The system renders finished slides from the Ghost Deck. Charts get generated from the data points you specified. Tables are built from defined rows and columns. Frameworks and visuals follow the wireframe specs. Action Titles, subtitles, source references, color semantics: everything lands where it should.
Rendering is not a creative step. It's a mechanical one. When the data specification is correct (and five previous phases made sure of that), no human needs to drag bars or align text boxes.
The principle
Other tools generate slides from prompts. Rigon generates slides from an argument structure that has been tested, evidenced, and validated across five previous phases. Every chart is based on data points you specified. Every headline passed the Horizontal Flow Test.
The result is not a pretty deck. It's a deck where every slide exists for a reason.
What you get at each phase
| Phase | Your output |
|---|---|
| 1. Problem | A prioritized Issue Tree showing where the levers are. Every assumption evidence-tagged. |
| 2. Narrative | The core message of your deck in a single sentence. A logical chain no one in the room can dispute. |
| 3. Storyline | A complete argument chain with evidence status for every claim. Title-Read-Through tested. |
| 4. Ghost Deck | A fully specified skeleton: Action Titles, data specs, wireframes. The alignment tool. |
| 5. Review | An adversarial audit. Speaker notes. Q&A prep. Kill-metric. Dry run diagnosis. |
| 6. Render | Finished slides, auto-rendered from the tested argument structure. |
Deploy the infrastructure.
Six phases. From problem to rendered slides. No shortcuts. The discipline is the feature.
Request Early Access