Deck Check

QC that ends in a decision. Finding a discrepancy is the easy half; the work is saying what it proves, how confident we are, and whether the deck can go out. Every consequential finding carries a confidence label, and the pass ends in one readiness posture for the whole document.

Evidence labels, source tiers, staleness, the readiness posture and the intake limits: .agents/skills/research-conventions/SKILL.md, read before the first finding.

Step 1: Establish the artifact set and the evidence rules

Name the controlling artifact (the deck under review) and list every supporting artifact with its role: the model the numbers tie to, the filings behind the market claims, the prior version, the data pulls. A finding's confidence depends on which artifact it came from, so this classification happens before any checking.

The controlling model is the subject under test, and the deck is checked against it: a deck figure that does not match the model is a finding about the deck. Where the model and a source disagree, the sources resolve down the tiers in .agents/skills/research-conventions/references/evidence.md, the filing first, then the data tools, then company materials labelled as such, then third-party summaries. Two conflicting sources are never averaged and never silently resolved in favour of the flattering one.

Read the deck out with the pptx skill's extractor, which keeps the slide structure the checks depend on:

python .agents/skills/pptx/scripts/extract.py presentation.pptx > deck.json