Visual hierarchy, AI slop patterns, brand consistency, print-PDF readiness. The biggest finding: EN decks and JA deck use DIFFERENT brand palettes — evergreen #324532 (EN) vs emerald-700 #047857 (JA). Same product, different visual identities.
/design-review skill is built for live-browser QA (visual inconsistency / spacing / hierarchy / AI slop / slow interactions) — it requires a running app or browser session, not static slide HTMLs. This audit is the static-analysis substitute: reading each deck's CSS + slide structure + content density and flagging visual / hierarchy / slop issues per slide. Findings are anchored to specific file:line pairs.
| Deck | Visual hierarchy | AI slop | Brand consistency | Print-PDF ready | 4-dimension visibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deck-en-alchemist-interview | 6/10 | 5/10 | 8/10 | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| deck-en-10slide | 7/10 | 7/10 | 8/10 | 9/10 | 3/10 |
| kashi_pitch_v3_final (JA) | 8/10 | 8/10 | 5/10 | 9/10 | 5/10 |
Read this scoreboard like: the JA deck is the best-designed of the 3 (strong hierarchy, real mock visuals, low slop) — but uses a different brand palette than the EN decks. The two EN decks are visually clean but neither dedicates a slide to any of the 4 dimensions Justine named (problem, success, moat, why-not-GPT). All 3 decks fail "4-dimension visibility" — none let a partner reading the deck cold answer the 4 questions in <60s each.
| Element | EN decks (alchemist + 10-slide) | JA deck (v3_final) | Canonical |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary green | #324532 evergreen (deep, muted, warm) | #047857 emerald-700 (saturated, cooler) | Memory says emerald-700 is canonical for typographical accents; evergreen is the "deep brand". Both legitimate but inconsistent across surfaces. |
| Heading font | Inter 700 | Fraunces (variable) + Zen Kaku Gothic New 700 | JA uses canonical Fraunces wordmark (typography-spec-v1 §4.1); EN drops Fraunces for Inter (faster, more enterprise-modern). Trade-off Justine made consciously. |
| Body font | Inter | Zen Kaku Gothic New + IBM Plex Sans | Justified — JA needs CJK-optimized rendering. |
| Background | Cream #F5F0E6 + Evergreen dark slides | Light gray #E2E5E9 page + white slides | Different metaphor. Cream = warm B2B SaaS. White-on-gray = traditional pitch deck. EN feels more modern. |
| Accent | Coral #E8836B | Emerald-100/50 (light green) | Coral is more attention-grabbing; emerald is more in-family. Different vibes. |
Recommendation: For v5 — unify on the EN palette (Inter + evergreen + cream + coral) across BOTH EN and JA. JA can keep Zen Kaku for body but use Inter for kicker/labels and evergreen for headers. This costs visual polish on the JA deck (loses Fraunces wordmark warmth) but gains brand coherence for partners who see both. The Alchemist + J-StarX partners are global; they'll see both eventually. Alt: keep two palettes, document the rationale as "EN = modern enterprise / JA = warm traditional" — but this adds confusion when a partner asks "which is the real Kashi?"
| Slide / line | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| S6 / L362-369 | AI slop: 2 cards "What we do / What we don't" — generic structure. The "What we don't" card just lists 3 negatives ("Judge people. Predict who will quit. Diagnose emotions.") in 14pt. No visual weight, no hierarchy. Reads as defensive disclosure, not as moat. | HIGH |
| S7 / L375-385 | Good design: compare layout (left = existing tools, right = Kashi) is a SOLID hierarchy. Dark Kashi card vs light competitor card creates instant contrast. Keep this pattern. | POSITIVE |
| S8 / L393-404 | AI slop: 3 cards "No emotion recognition / No employee scoring / Content never stored" — list of negatives. Same problem as S6. A "Why we built it this way" angle would be stronger. | MED |
| S10 / L433-444 | Visual issue: founder bullets (3 of them) + pull quote — too dense for 1 slide. Pull quote ("People do not leave suddenly. They become silent first.") deserves its own slide. | MED |
| S11 / L450-461 | Good design: 4-card traction grid with big numbers (v1 / 908 / 25% / →) is visually strong. Numbers carry the load. | POSITIVE |
| Cover S1 / L292-305 | Brand strength: Wordmark + tagline + identity meta in a clean dark slide. Cover is solid. | POSITIVE |
| Cross-cutting | 4-dimension visibility FAIL: No dedicated Moat slide (S6 = problem reframe, not architecture moat). No dedicated Success slide (S11 = traction, not 3-phase). No dedicated Why-not-GPT slide. | HIGH |
| Slide / line | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| S5 Why now / L127-138 | Good design: 3-card Loss / Obligation / Regulation grid is high-impact. Visual hierarchy correct (kicker → headline → cards → footer). KEEP this pattern. | POSITIVE |
| S6 Moat / L140-152 | Visual hierarchy issue: Slide title "Our moat isn't a feature. It's how the product is built." is good. But the 4 bullets that follow describe properties, not the architecture moat V3 prescribes. The footer "Hard to copy without redesigning the entire product" is in a different style (small italic). Eye lands on bullets, not on the structural argument. | HIGH |
| S7 Traction / L154-181 | Density issue: 3 traction bullets ABOVE + 3-card 6-month plan BELOW = 1 slide doing 2 jobs. Either split into "Traction" + "6-month plan" or compress. | MED |
| S8 Market / L183-209 | Good design: 3 stat columns (TAM/SAM/SOM) with big numbers + pricing ladder. Strong visual hierarchy. Keep. | POSITIVE |
| S9 Team / L213-219 | Visual + content issue: Founder slide has 4 lines of dense bio + LinkedIn URL placeholder ("[paste LinkedIn URL here — see BRIEFING note]"). Placeholder MUST NOT SHIP. Also: bio reads as paragraph not as scannable. Convert to bullets or a card grid. | HIGH |
| S10 Ask / L221-233 | Strong closer: 3 asks in a list + "Japan first. Built to travel." + tagline closer. Good shape. | POSITIVE |
| Cross-cutting | 4-dimension visibility FAIL: Same as Alchemist deck — no dedicated Moat / Success / Why-not-GPT slide. | HIGH |
| Print-PDF check | Good: @media print rules set @page size:landscape margin:0, each slide page-break-after:always. Print-PDF works cleanly via ⌘P. | POSITIVE |
| Slide / line | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| S06 Product / L580-694 | Strong design: 3 mock SVG visualizations (Exec Cross-team view / Manager Mirror / Member View) are the best slide in any of the 3 decks. Concrete product evidence. KEEP. | POSITIVE |
| S07 Boundary / L699-715 | Strong design: 3-column table 見えるもの / 見せないもの / なぜ — clean architecture-not-policy framing. Strong content. Visual is also clean. | POSITIVE |
| S11 Market / L793-817 | Strong design: 3-stat row (SOM / SAM / TAM) with descriptive footnotes. Numbers carry the load. Matches EN 10-slide S8. | POSITIVE |
| S13 Founder / L920-940 | Visual + content issue: Title "単独でここまで作った" is visually emphasized — which makes the V3-forbidden "solo" framing more prominent than it should be. The same slide with V3-aligned "共同創業者級のチームメイトと共に" headline would land very differently. | HIGH |
| S14 Architecture / L940-1000 | Good content, dense visual: Detector + privacy + access boundaries explained. Heavy with bullets. Could benefit from card-based layout matching S07 boundary slide. | MED |
| S16 Regulatory / L1030-1060 | Visual issue: Article 5 EU AI Act + APPI bullets in a card. The "勝負" framing makes it read as a competitive angle vs partners — V3 reframes as compliance posture. | HIGH |
| Cross-cutting | 4-dimension visibility PARTIAL: Problem slide (S02 voices-too-late) present and good. Success (S08 + S09 + S11) partial — 6-month + market sizing exist but no V3 Phase 1/2/3 structure. Moat (distributed across S05 + S07 + S14) — no single moat slide. Why-not-GPT — not present. | HIGH |
| Page numbering "/ 23" | Design issue: 23 slides for an interview deck is too many. McKinsey-style "/ 23" page numbering reinforces the wall-of-slides feeling. Consider splitting into "main 16 + appendix 7" with appendix marked clearly so interviewers know they can skip. | LOW |
| Brand inconsistency | Uses emerald-700 #047857 + Fraunces + Zen Kaku — does not match the EN decks' evergreen + Inter. Visible to any partner who sees both decks. | HIGH (cross-deck) |
Specific generic-deck patterns visible across the 3 decks. These read as "another B2B SaaS pitch" rather than as Kashi-specific. v5 should avoid:
Apply the codex-audit + gemini-audit findings + the design observations above. Recommended v5 slide-count + slide structure (target = same across all 3 decks for brand coherence):
| # | Slide | Why this slide | V3 anchor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cover | Tagline + identity meta | — |
| 2 | Hook — 退職代行 / Resignation agencies as visible symptom | V3 mandates this hook explicitly | V3 L23-25, L46-47 |
| 3 | Problem — more communication, less visibility (4 cards of early signs) | Concretize the dialogue breakdown | V3 L46-47, L96-101 |
| 4 | Solution — Kashi reads the SHAPE, not content (3-step pipeline) | Core mechanism explainer | V3 L50, L106 |
| 5 | Product — 3 mock visuals (Exec / Manager / Member views) | Concrete product evidence (JA deck S06 pattern) | — |
| 6 | Boundary — what we see / don't see / why | Architecture-not-policy boundary | V3 L106, L118 |
| 7 | NEW — Moat (3 architectural reasons) | verbatim V3 3-beat as 3 cards: auditable+reproducible+content-blind / persistent state / doctrine in data layer | V3 L144-146 |
| 8 | NEW — Why won't GPT eat us | Reframes the same 3-beat as commodity-LLM-defense (Microsoft trap addressed honestly per codex finding) | V3 L52-58, L108-114 |
| 9 | Why now — 3 forces (Loss / Obligation / Regulation) | EU AI Act Annex III §4 + MHLW + 退職代行 as visibility-cost signal | V3 L60, L116 |
| 10 | Market — Tokyo SMB 50-500 ICP + TAM/SAM/SOM + reseller channel | Specific ICP per V3 | V3 L62-63, L120, L154 |
| 11 | NEW — Success (3 phases with concrete numbers) | Phase 1 (12mo: 5 pilots, SLA 80%+, NPS 7+, 1 renewal) / Phase 2 (24-36mo: 50 customers, 30 via reseller) / Phase 3 (5yr: default trusted lane) | V3 L152-154 |
| 12 | Traction — 908 / 25% / pilot conversations + honest pre-pilot | Time-anchored proof per V3 | V3 L66, L126, L162 |
| 13 | Founder fit — Justine + co-founder-level teammate | V3-aligned solo→co-founder framing; lived-problem credential | V3 L30, L48, L104, L158 |
| 14 | Ask / Closer | "Before silence becomes resignation." | V3 L32, L128 |
14 slides for EN long (Alchemist + investor deck), 12 slides for EN short (J-StarX submission — collapse Moat + Why-not-GPT into one), 16 slides for JA (add Appendix-marked 2 slides for market math + 5 detector specs).
All 3 decks have @media print rules with @page size:landscape and page-break-after:always per slide. Tested mental walkthrough: