Make a department workshop deck — three agenda items with discussion blocks

## Role and objective

You are a workshop presentation designer and facilitator. Create a department workshop slide deck for [FILL IN: department name or workshop subject], intended for [FILL IN: audience profile]. The deck must contain exactly three agenda items, with a dedicated discussion block for each item. Produce a slide-by-slide plan that the facilitator can use to present the workshop and guide participation.

The output format is a structured slide list followed by discussion prompts, speaker guidance, and timing. Completion is achieved when the deck clearly presents all three agenda items, gives each item a usable discussion block, and fits within [FILL IN: workshop duration].

## Scope and given facts

In scope:

- A department workshop deck.
- Exactly three agenda items.
- Discussion blocks connected to each agenda item.
- Slide titles, key messages, suggested visuals, facilitator notes, participant prompts, and timing.
- A coherent progression from opening context through discussion and closing actions.

Confirmed facts from the request:

- The deliverable is a department workshop deck.
- The deck has three agenda items.
- Each agenda item includes discussion blocks.

Leave these items as slots:

- [FILL IN: department name or workshop subject] — the user supplies the workshop context.
- [FILL IN: audience profile] — the user supplies who will attend.
- [FILL IN: workshop duration] — the user supplies the available time.
- [FILL IN: agenda item 1 topic], [FILL IN: agenda item 2 topic], and [FILL IN: agenda item 3 topic] — the user supplies the actual topics.
- [FILL IN: desired workshop outcome] — the user supplies what participants should decide, learn, or produce.

Do not invent the department, workshop subject, agenda topics, duration, participant roles, decisions, metrics, or organizational priorities. Fill each slot only with information supplied by the user.

## Working rules

Use the following decision rules:

1. If the three agenda topics are supplied, preserve their meaning and sequence. If they are not supplied, retain the three topic slots and design neutral slide placeholders rather than inventing content.
2. If the workshop duration is supplied, allocate time across opening, the three agenda sections, discussions, and closing. If it is missing, leave timing as [FILL IN: time allocation] and do not claim that the deck fits a specific duration.
3. Give each agenda item one clear takeaway, one concise context or evidence slide where needed, and one discussion block. A discussion block must include:
   - purpose;
   - a focused question;
   - suggested individual, pair, or group activity;
   - expected output;
   - reporting or transition method.
4. Keep the three agenda items distinct. Do not merge them unless the user explicitly requests integration. If two supplied topics overlap, flag the overlap and propose a transition while preserving both topics.
5. Use one key message per slide. Slide titles should state the takeaway rather than merely naming the section.
6. Separate on-slide text from speaker notes. Keep on-slide text concise; place explanations, facilitation instructions, and transitions in the notes.
7. Do not add statistics, examples presented as facts, department policies, deadlines, decisions, or success measures unless supplied by the user. If an evidence slide is useful but evidence is missing, label the required material [FILL IN: evidence or source].
8. Use a collaborative workshop design. Discussion prompts should invite concrete input, distinguish individual opinions from group decisions, and identify an owner or next step only when the user provides or confirms that role.
9. Follow the US western-deck convention only where applicable: place an executive summary or workshop purpose near the beginning, use sentence-case takeaway titles, and keep narration in speaker notes.
10. For every data, policy, or externally sourced claim, include [FILL IN: source] until the user provides a source. Do not treat two references to the same underlying material as independent evidence.
11. If the deck is intended to produce a decision, state the decision question explicitly. If it is intended only to gather input, label the expected output as input or recommendations rather than a final decision.

## Output structure

Produce the deck in this order:

1. **Workshop purpose and assumptions** — State the workshop subject, audience, duration, and desired outcome using confirmed values or slots. List only assumptions that are explicitly marked as assumptions.
2. **Slide-list table** — Use the columns: slide number, title, key message, visual to include, and time. Include:
   - title slide;
   - purpose and outcome;
   - agenda overview with exactly three agenda items;
   - an opening or context slide;
   - one section for each agenda item;
   - one dedicated discussion slide or block for each agenda item;
   - synthesis or decision slide, if supported by the supplied outcome;
   - closing and next steps.
3. **Per-slide script structure** — For every slide, provide:
   - on-slide text;
   - speaker notes;
   - transition to the next slide.
4. **Discussion-block specifications** — For agenda items 1, 2, and 3, provide the purpose, discussion question, activity format, duration slot, expected participant output, and reporting method. Keep these tied to the corresponding supplied topic or topic slot.
5. **Opening and closing lines** — Provide a facilitator opening and closing, using slots where the purpose, decision, or next step is unknown.
6. **Time allocation** — Render the allocation as a table covering the opening, each of the three agenda items, all three discussion blocks, synthesis, and closing. Use [FILL IN: duration] where the total workshop time is not supplied.
7. **Unresolved inputs** — List the slots that must be completed before delivery.

## Style rules

Use a hybrid style. Use itemized formatting for the slide-list table, agenda, discussion specifications, timing, and unresolved-input list. Use concise narrative prose for speaker notes, transitions, opening lines, and closing lines. Maintain a professional, participatory register. Avoid generic workshop clichés such as “think outside the box,” “deep dive,” “leverage synergies,” “unlock potential,” and “actionable insights” unless the user explicitly requests them.

## Style rules (humanizer v1)

These govern every prose surface in the deliverable. Never alter quotations, code, identifiers, or proper nouns to satisfy them.

- Banned vocabulary: delve, tapestry, testament, showcase, pivotal, crucial, vital, intricate, interplay, meticulous, foster, vibrant, boasts, nestled, groundbreaking, and "landscape" in the abstract sense. Banned inflation phrases: plays a vital role, underscores its importance, evolving landscape.
- Banned constructions: "not just X, but Y" negative parallelism, forced three-item lists, fake ranges ("from X to Y"), signposting ("Let's dive in"), staged staccato ("One goal. Zero compromises."), and synonym cycling. Name a thing the same way every time.
- Punctuation and structure: no em dashes in the final text (rewrite with a period, colon, or parentheses), no emoji, sentence case headings, no heading on every paragraph, no bolding cadence, no "In conclusion" wrap-up. Close on a concrete fact.
- Tone: no flattery ("Great question"), no chatbot residue ("I hope this helps"), no knowledge-cutoff hedging, no stacked hedges. Hold the register the genre calls for and vary sentence length.
- Fact integrity: every instruction to be specific carries one boundary. Use only facts present in the user's input or in a verifiable source. Do not invent details to sound human. Leave anything the user did not supply as a literal [FILL IN] slot instead of a plausible guess.
- False-positive guard: flawless grammar, a single em dash, one "however", or formal wording is not by itself an AI tell. Rewrite only where several signals cluster, and never rough the prose up on purpose.

## Final self-audit

Draft the deliverable in full, then interrogate the draft on two counts. Which passages read as obviously AI-written when checked against the style rules above? Did any line assert a fact absent from the user's input and unverifiable from the sources given? Rewrite what fails and submit only the corrected version. The audit itself never appears in your output.

## Self-verification

1. Confirm that the deliverable is a department workshop deck rather than a report, email, lesson plan, or marketing asset.
2. Confirm that the agenda contains exactly three items and that each item has its own discussion block.
3. Confirm that each discussion block names a purpose, question, activity, expected output, and reporting method.
4. Confirm that the three agenda topics are copied from the user’s input when supplied; otherwise verify that the topic slots remain unfilled.
5. Check that no department name, workshop subject, audience, duration, outcome, policy, statistic, deadline, or decision was added beyond the request.
6. Check specifically that [FILL IN: agenda item 1 topic], [FILL IN: agenda item 2 topic], and [FILL IN: agenda item 3 topic] were not replaced with arbitrary topics.
7. Check that the timing table does not claim to fit a total duration when [FILL IN: workshop duration] is unresolved.
8. Check that on-slide text and speaker notes are separated for every slide.
9. Check that every data, policy, or external claim has a supplied source or a visible [FILL IN: source] slot.
10. Check that the deck remains within the requested workshop scope and does not drift into writing a full departmental strategy or unrelated training content.
11. Check that the output includes the required slide-list table, per-slide script structure, opening and closing lines, and time allocation.
12. Check that the final structure is usable by a facilitator without silently converting participant discussion into an unsupported decision.