Comprehensive Slide Feedback - PowerPoint Presentation

Summary by Slide

Slide 1: Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent alignment for a title slide (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Main slide title 'Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court'
- Recommendation: Consider centering the main slide title 'Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court' to enhance visual balance and follow standard title slide aesthetics.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide 2: Expansion across Kollam

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent horizontal alignment between the slide title and the main content cards (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Overall slide layout
- Recommendation: Consider centering the slide title to align with the horizontally centered content cards for improved visual balance and consistency, especially for an announcement slide.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide 3: 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent horizontal alignment across numerical columns in the table. (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Table columns "% of Pendency", "New Filings", "Distance (in KM)"
- Recommendation: Consider aligning numerical columns ('% of Pendency', 'New Filings', 'Distance (in KM)') with a consistent horizontal alignment (e.g., all center or all right) to enhance visual order.
Color coding in the "Distance (in KM)" column lacks a legend or explanation. (Priority: medium)
- Location: Table column "Distance (in KM)"
- Recommendation: Add a legend or key to explain the meaning of the color coding used in the 'Distance (in KM)' column to improve data interpretation.
The grey checkmark symbol in the 'Visited' column for 'Kollam' is ambiguous without a legend. (Priority: medium)
- Location: Table 'Visited' column, row for 'Kollam'
- Recommendation: Provide a legend or explanation for the different colored checkmarks/symbols in the 'Visited' column, especially for the grey checkmark, to clarify their meaning.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Unclear meaning of distance ranges (Priority: high)
- Location: Distance (in KM) column
- Recommendation: Clarify what the distance ranges represent (e.g., 'Distance from Kollam (in KM)') and explain why the distance is presented as a range rather than a single value.
Ambiguous status for 'Kollam' in 'Visited' column (Priority: high)
- Location: Visited column, row for Kollam
- Recommendation: Clarify the meaning of the grey checkmark for 'Kollam'. Explain if it signifies a different type of visit, partial visit, or if Kollam is the central hub not counted within the '8/10' complexes, to avoid confusion with the green/red indicators.
Slide 4: 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Missing legend for table status indicators (Priority: medium)
- Location: Table data
- Recommendation: Add a legend or key to explicitly explain the meaning of different colors and symbols (e.g., green checkmark, red cross, various gauge colors, greyed-out icons, and question marks) to ensure clearer data interpretation for all states.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Unclear meaning of status indicators (gauges) (Priority: high)
- Location: Columns 'BAR Pulse' and 'Net Connectivity'
- Recommendation: Provide a clear legend or key explaining what each color (green, yellow, red, grey) and fill level on the gauges represents in terms of readiness or connectivity status.
Ambiguous grey status indicators (Priority: medium)
- Location: Rows 'Kollam', 'Chittumala', 'Chandayamangalam' and their respective status columns
- Recommendation: Add a footnote or key to define what the grey checkmark and grey question mark symbols signify (e.g., 'Under Evaluation', 'Data Not Available', 'Not Visited').
Inconsistency in the number of court complexes presented (Priority: high)
- Location: Overall table content in relation to the implied scope from the slide title
- Recommendation: Clarify the discrepancy between the 12 complexes listed in the table and the '8/10 court complexes visited' mentioned in the slide title (provided for context). Ensure the number of complexes evaluated or presented is consistent with the stated scope.
Slide 5: Untitled Slide

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
✅ All checks passed with no issues
Slide 8: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

✅ No issues detected
✅ All checks passed with no issues
Slide 9: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

The slide title states '5 key pre-requisites' but the main content lists 6 items. (Priority: high)
- Location: Slide title and main content table
- Recommendation: Ensure the number of pre-requisites in the slide title accurately reflects the number of items listed in the content, or adjust the content to match the title.
The 'Courier Service go-live' callout box uses a '1' in a different visual style, which may cause confusion with the main numbered list that also starts with '1'. (Priority: medium)
- Location: Courier Service go-live callout box
- Recommendation: Clarify the purpose of the '1' in the 'Courier Service go-live' box and ensure consistent numbering or clear visual differentiation if it represents a separate sequence from the main list.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Discrepancy between the stated number of prerequisites and the actual count (Priority: high)
- Location: Slide title and main table content
- Recommendation: The slide title mentions '5 key pre-requisites', but the main table lists 6 items. Either update the title to '6 key pre-requisites' or adjust the list to clearly identify and present only 5.
Unclear relationship of 'Courier Service go-live' to the main list of prerequisites (Priority: medium)
- Location: Left box with 'Courier Service go-live'
- Recommendation: Clarify if 'Courier Service go-live' is one of the prerequisites, an outcome of the prerequisites, or a separate but related milestone. Integrate it logically into the main list or explain its context.
Ambiguous numbering '1' in the left box (Priority: medium)
- Location: Left box with 'Courier Service go-live'
- Recommendation: The number '1' in the box above 'Courier Service go-live' is confusing as it doesn't align with the numbered list of prerequisites. Remove it or clarify its meaning.
Slide 10: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent use of separator lines in list elements (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Right content panel, list items
- Recommendation: Ensure all list items in the right panel have consistent separator lines, or remove them entirely for a cleaner look.
Minor misalignment of column header (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Right content panel, 'Date' column header
- Recommendation: Consider aligning the 'Date' column header more precisely with the dates below it for improved visual order.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent numbering and unclear presentation of the '5 key pre-requisites' (Priority: high)
- Location: Overall slide content, specifically the relationship between the left boxes and the right table
- Recommendation: Clearly list and number all 5 prerequisites in a consistent format. For example, use a single list or a unified table, ensuring all 5 items are visually distinct and easy to track.
Ambiguous statement for 'Bar aligned by HC' (Priority: high)
- Location: Right table, item 4
- Recommendation: Clarify what 'Bar' refers to in this context and what 'aligned by HC' specifically means.
Slide 11: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Slight vertical misalignment between table headers and content (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Table on the right, specifically between 'Action'/'Date' headers and the text below them
- Recommendation: Consider adjusting the vertical alignment of the table content to match the headers for a more polished look.
Text in box 3 appears slightly off-center (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Box 3 ('Resource Allocation')
- Recommendation: Consider adjusting the horizontal alignment of the text 'Resource Allocation' and '10th October' to be perfectly centered within its box.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Unclear phrasing for action item (Priority: medium)
- Location: Action table, second item
- Recommendation: Rephrase 'Missing e-Sewa Kendra help arranged' for clarity. It is ambiguous whether the help itself was missing or if help was arranged to address a missing e-Sewa Kendra. Consider options like 'Help arranged for e-Sewa Kendra gap' or 'Arrangement made to address missing e-Sewa Kendra'.
Slide 12: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent text alignment within the structured list (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Main list under 'Action' and 'Date' headers
- Recommendation: Consider aligning the content within both 'Action' and 'Date' columns consistently, for example, left-aligning both, to improve visual harmony and alignment structure.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide 13: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Inconsistent font weight for content text within the main table (Priority: medium)
- Location: Main table, 'Action' and 'Date' columns
- Recommendation: Ensure consistent font weight for all content text within the table. Either make both 'Action' text and 'Date' text regular or both bold for better visual consistency.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Ambiguity in the consolidated date for 'Testing & Trainings' (Priority: medium)
- Location: Testing & Trainings summary box on the right
- Recommendation: Clarify if '30th October' in the summary box refers to the final completion date for all testing and training prerequisites (1-4), or if it represents a different milestone. If it's an overarching deadline, consider rephrasing to explicitly state this relationship to the individual dates listed in the main table.
Slide 14: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
✅ All checks passed with no issues
Slide 15: Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Non-sequential numbering in the table (Priority: critical)
- Location: '#' column of the table
- Recommendation: Correct the numbering in the '#' column to ensure a sequential and logical order for table entries, improving overall readability and data structure.
Text partially obscured by visual elements (Priority: critical)
- Location: 'Outputs' column, specifically for 'Go-live date approval' and 'Expanded Jurisdiction notified (HC>CJM>>>)'
- Recommendation: Adjust the layout to ensure all text in the 'Outputs' column is fully visible and not obscured by borders or other visual elements.
Inconsistent cell formatting with borders (Priority: medium)
- Location: 'End Timeline' column, specific date cells (e.g., 9-Oct, 1-Oct*, 6-Oct, 30-Oct)
- Recommendation: Ensure consistent cell formatting in the 'End Timeline' column by removing the inconsistent black borders or applying them uniformly with a clear purpose if they are meant to highlight specific dates.
Missing legend for asterisk symbol (Priority: high)
- Location: 'End Timeline' column, dates marked with an asterisk (e.g., 1-Oct*)
- Recommendation: Add a legend or footnote to explain the meaning of the asterisk symbol used in the 'End Timeline' column, ensuring all data points are clearly understood.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Unclear notation for jurisdiction progression (Priority: medium)
- Location: Output: 'Expanded Jurisdiction notified (HC>CJM>>>)'
- Recommendation: Clarify the meaning of the '>>>' notation. If it indicates a specific hierarchy or progression, use a more standard or explained format.
Awkward phrasing for resource arrangement (Priority: medium)
- Location: Output: 'Missing Resource/Infra arranged'
- Recommendation: Rephrase for better clarity, e.g., 'Resources/Infra arranged' or 'Resolution of Missing Resources/Infra', as 'Missing Resource/Infra arranged' is slightly contradictory.
Informal notation for personnel reference (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Output: 'BAR consultations/alignment by HC [J. Raja]'
- Recommendation: Consider removing the bracketed name if it's an internal note, or integrate it more formally into the text if it's essential for the audience (e.g., 'BAR consultations/alignment by J. Raja (HC)').
Punctuation for list enumeration (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Output: 'Run-through testing- Internal, community, On-ground'
- Recommendation: Replace the hyphen with a colon for better grammatical structure, e.g., 'Run-through testing: Internal, community, On-ground'.
Informal language for deployment (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Output: 'Standees/ Phy. IEC put up in each court complex'
- Recommendation: Use more formal language such as 'Standees/Phy. IEC installed' or 'deployed in each court complex'.
Slide 24: Expansion across Kollam

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
✅ All checks passed with no issues
Slide 25: There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Discrepancy between the stated number of 'Special NIA Courts' and the data presented. (Priority: high)
- Location: Overall slide content, specifically the list of courts and their data.
- Recommendation: The slide states '3 special NIA Courts' and the map highlights three yellow regions as 'Special NIA Courts'. However, data for four locations is presented, with Kollam identified as a '24X7 ON Court'. Clarify which three courts are the 'Special NIA Courts' and their combined contribution to the 35% caseload. If Kollam's data is relevant, explicitly state its type and its relationship to the 'Special NIA Courts' (e.g., 'Kollam: A 24x7 ON Court, for comparison').
The calculation of '35% of case load' is not explicitly shown for the three special NIA courts. (Priority: medium)
- Location: The claim '35% of case load' and the individual court percentages.
- Recommendation: Add a subtotal for the three 'Special NIA Courts' (Kozhikode, Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram) to explicitly show how their combined caseload totals 35% (or 35.5%), confirming the claim in the main statement.
Slide 26: There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Misalignment of legend color squares with text labels (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Legend at the bottom left
- Recommendation: Align the colored squares precisely with the baseline of their respective text labels to ensure visual consistency and neatness.
Inconsistent vertical alignment of data callout boxes (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Data callout boxes around the map
- Recommendation: Consider establishing a more consistent vertical alignment for the callout boxes on each side of the map (e.g., aligning their top edges or centers to an invisible grid) to improve overall visual order.
Footer text not aligned with page number (Priority: suggestive)
- Location: Bottom right footer
- Recommendation: Align the text 'Average of filings in last 5 years' to the same horizontal line as the page number '26' to improve visual balance and consistency in the footer.
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 7/10)

Missing source citation for statistical data on NIA case pendency (Priority: critical)
- Location: Quantitative data for each district (Kollam, Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Kozhikode, Thrissur, Palakkad, Kottayam) and the statement 'Average of filings in last 5 years'
- Recommendation: Add a clear source citation for the NIA case pendency data, specifying its origin (e.g., 'Source: Judicial Department, Government of Kerala' or 'Source: Internal analysis of public court records')
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 7/10)

The color palette used in the map visualization (teal, yellow, grey) appears inconsistent with the green color used in the 'PUCAR' brand logo. (Priority: medium)
- Location: Map of Kerala and 'PUCAR' logo
- Recommendation: Align the color palette for data visualizations with the overall brand aesthetic. Ensure the chosen colors are either primary brand colors or part of an approved secondary brand palette to maintain visual consistency.
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

The denominator for percentages ('Total Cases') is unclear (Priority: high)
- Location: District data points (e.g., '4% of Total Cases')
- Recommendation: Clarify what 'Total Cases' refers to (e.g., 'Total NIA Cases in Kerala', 'Total Cases in the District', or 'Total Cases of this type') to provide proper context for the percentages.
The relationship between court types and case pendency is not explicitly stated (Priority: medium)
- Location: Map and legend
- Recommendation: Briefly explain how the presence or absence of '24X7 ON Court' or 'Special NIA Court' relates to the 'high NIA case pendency' being highlighted, or what insight these court types offer regarding the pendency data.
Slide 27: Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

The description for 'Option 3' is slightly ambiguous (Priority: medium)
- Location: Option 3, 'Option' column
- Recommendation: Clarify the phrasing for 'Split date/ time of existing Magistrate' to be more explicit, such as 'Split existing Magistrate's time between old and new cases' or 'Designate specific time slots for existing Magistrate' to avoid initial confusion.
Slide 28: Key asks/unlocks required from HC

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

✅ No issues detected
Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Grammatical error in phrasing of request (Priority: medium)
- Location: Item 2: 'Approval on In-portal Survey of Advocates'
- Recommendation: Change 'Approval on' to 'Approval for' to improve grammatical correctness and clarity. The phrase should read 'Approval for In-portal Survey of Advocates'.
Redundant preposition in request (Priority: medium)
- Location: Item 3: 'Space for the team to sit in in High Court'
- Recommendation: Remove the redundant 'in' to improve conciseness and grammatical correctness. The phrase should read 'Space for the team to sit in High Court' or 'Space for the team to sit within High Court'.
Complete JSON Response

{
  "storyline-analysis": {
    "prompt": "# Overall Action Title Coherence Analysis\n\nAnalyze these presentation action titles as a cohesive narrative:\n\n\n**Slide Titles:**\n1. Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court [Visual attached below]\n2. Expansion across Kollam [Visual attached below]\n3. 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion [Visual attached below]\n4. 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2) [Visual attached below]\n5. Untitled Slide [Visual attached below]\n6. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n7. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n8. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n9. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n10. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n11. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n12. 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct [Visual attached below]\n13. Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites [Visual attached below]\n14. Expansion across Kollam [Visual attached below]\n15. There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load [Visual attached below]\n16. There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well [Visual attached below]\n17. Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing  [Visual attached below]\n18. Key asks/unlocks required from HC [Visual attached below]\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\nONLY ANALYSE FROM THE POINTS BELOW. NOTHING ELSE IS NEEDED.\n\n### 1. Narrative Flow\n\n- Do the titles tell a logical, progressive story?\n- Are there narrative gaps or disconnected jumps?\n- Does each title build upon the previous?\n- **Flow coherence score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Consistent Voice & Style\n\n- Are all titles written in consistent active voice?\n- Is the writing style uniform across slides?\n- Do they maintain the same tone and perspective?\n- **Style consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Action Verb Variety\n\n- Are action verbs appropriately varied or repetitive?\n- Do verbs escalate in impact/importance appropriately?\n- Are there weak verbs that should be strengthened?\n- **Verb effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Storyline Completeness\n\n- Do the titles form a self-contained narrative?\n- Is there a clear beginning, middle, end structure?\n- Are key story elements missing?\n- **Narrative completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Executive Summary Potential\n\n- Could someone understand the key message from titles alone?\n- Do they summarize the presentation effectively?\n- **Executive clarity score (1-10)**\n\nONLY ANALYSE FROM THE POINTS ABOVE. NOTHING ELSE IS NEEDED.\n\n---\n\n## Required Output Format\n\nReturn your analysis as JSON with this exact structure:\n{\n  \"actionOriented\": <number 1-100 representing how visually action-oriented the slides are>,\n  \"recommendations\": [\n    {\n      \"type\": \"title\" | \"visual\" | \"design\" | \"flow\" | \"layout\",\n      \"priority\": \"high\" | \"medium\" | \"low\", \n      \"description\": \"<specific visual recommendation based on what you see in the slide images>\",\n      \"slideNumber\": <slide number if applicable, or null>\n    }\n  ],\n  \"overallRating\": <number 1-10 for visual storyline effectiveness>,\n  \"narrative\": {\n    \"coherence\": <number 1-10 for visual narrative coherence>,\n    \"contextCoverage\": <number 1-10 for visual context coverage>\n  }\n}\n\nProvide only valid JSON, no additional text.",
    "response": "```json\n{\n  \"actionOriented\": 75,\n  \"recommendations\": [\n    {\n      \"type\": \"title\",\n      \"priority\": \"high\",\n      \"description\": \"Change 'Untitled Slide' (Slide 5) to reflect the prominent visual text 'Go-Live Date: 31st October' or its implication, to clearly signpost the upcoming operationalization details.\",\n      \"slideNumber\": 5\n    },\n    {\n      \"type\": \"title\",\n      \"priority\": \"high\",\n      \"description\": \"Revise the repetitive titles for slides 7-12. Each title should specifically state which of the '5 key pre-requisites' (as visually presented on slide 6) it is detailing, to provide clear narrative progression and context.\",\n      \"slideNumber\": null\n    },\n    {\n      \"type\": \"title\",\n      \"priority\": \"high\",\n      \"description\": \"Update the title of Slide 14. The visual explicitly highlights 'Scale-up to other districts in KL' while 'Expansion across Kollam' is greyed out, indicating a shift in focus that the current title does not reflect.\",\n      \"slideNumber\": 14\n    },\n    {\n      \"type\": \"flow\",\n      \"priority\": \"medium\",\n      \"description\": \"Introduce a clear transition slide or rephrase the title of Slide 15 to bridge the thematic jump from Kollam operationalization and summary (Slide 13) to the introduction of NIA Courts and their caseload.\",\n      \"slideNumber\": 15\n    },\n    {\n      \"type\": \"title\",\n      \"priority\": \"medium\",\n      \"description\": \"Strengthen titles by using more active and impactful verbs. Many current titles are descriptive or passive ('visited', 'There are', 'will have to be managed', 'required'), which could be rephrased for a more action-oriented narrative.\",\n      \"slideNumber\": null\n    },\n    {\n      \"type\": \"title\",\n      \"priority\": \"low\",\n      \"description\": \"Ensure every title is unique, concise, and effectively summarizes the key message of its corresponding visual, improving the overall executive clarity and ability to understand the story from titles alone.\",\n      \"slideNumber\": null\n    }\n  ],\n  \"overallRating\": 6,\n  \"narrative\": {\n    \"coherence\": 7,\n    \"contextCoverage\": 8\n  }\n}\n```",
    "confidence": 95,
    "recommendations": [
      "Change 'Untitled Slide' (Slide 5) to reflect the prominent visual text 'Go-Live Date: 31st October' or its implication, to clearly signpost the upcoming operationalization details.",
      "Revise the repetitive titles for slides 7-12. Each title should specifically state which of the '5 key pre-requisites' (as visually presented on slide 6) it is detailing, to provide clear narrative progression and context.",
      "Update the title of Slide 14. The visual explicitly highlights 'Scale-up to other districts in KL' while 'Expansion across Kollam' is greyed out, indicating a shift in focus that the current title does not reflect.",
      "Introduce a clear transition slide or rephrase the title of Slide 15 to bridge the thematic jump from Kollam operationalization and summary (Slide 13) to the introduction of NIA Courts and their caseload.",
      "Strengthen titles by using more active and impactful verbs. Many current titles are descriptive or passive ('visited', 'There are', 'will have to be managed', 'required'), which could be rephrased for a more action-oriented narrative.",
      "Ensure every title is unique, concise, and effectively summarizes the key message of its corresponding visual, improving the overall executive clarity and ability to understand the story from titles alone."
    ],
    "rating": 6
  },
  "slide-aesthetics": {
    "slide_1": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court`\n**Content:** Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 7\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent alignment for a title slide",
          "location": "Main slide title 'Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court'",
          "recommendation": "Consider centering the main slide title 'Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court' to enhance visual balance and follow standard title slide aesthetics.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Consider centering the main slide title 'Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court' to enhance visual balance and follow standard title slide aesthetics."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_2": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 4 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN, not a quality problem or design flaw.**\n\n**⛔ ABSOLUTELY DO NOT FLAG ANY OF THESE AS ISSUES:**\n\n1. **Faded/low-contrast background elements** (text, icons, graphics) - INTENTIONAL\n2. **Ghosted or semi-transparent numbers/text** - INTENTIONAL\n3. **Washed out or greyed elements** - INTENTIONAL\n4. **Low contrast text, icons, or shapes** - INTENTIONAL\n5. **Dotted lines or separators that are low contrast** - INTENTIONAL\n6. **Shadow effects that appear incomplete or faded** - INTENTIONAL\n7. **Background elements that are hard to read** - INTENTIONAL\n8. **Any visual element that appears dimmed, greyed, or de-emphasized** - INTENTIONAL\n9. **Inconsistent styling between bright and dimmed elements** - INTENTIONAL\n10. **Visibility issues with background/context elements** - INTENTIONAL\n11. **Title-content alignment issues** - INTENTIONAL (title stays same while focus shifts)\n\n**This is a presentation FEATURE, not a bug. It's a sophisticated technique for controlling audience attention.**\n\n**✅ ONLY flag issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT elements:**\n- If the MAIN/BRIGHT content has alignment problems\n- If the MAIN/BRIGHT content has actual readability issues\n- If there are layout problems unrelated to dimming\n\n**If you see faded/greyed/dimmed elements, DO NOT create any issues about them. They are intentional and serve a clear purpose.**\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Expansion across Kollam`\n**Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 19\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 3\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent horizontal alignment between the slide title and the main content cards",
          "location": "Overall slide layout",
          "recommendation": "Consider centering the slide title to align with the horizontally centered content cards for improved visual balance and consistency, especially for an announcement slide.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Consider centering the slide title to align with the horizontally centered content cards for improved visual balance and consistency, especially for an announcement slide."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_3": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion`\n**Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 15\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent horizontal alignment across numerical columns in the table.",
          "location": "Table columns \"% of Pendency\", \"New Filings\", \"Distance (in KM)\"",
          "recommendation": "Consider aligning numerical columns ('% of Pendency', 'New Filings', 'Distance (in KM)') with a consistent horizontal alignment (e.g., all center or all right) to enhance visual order.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Color coding in the \"Distance (in KM)\" column lacks a legend or explanation.",
          "location": "Table column \"Distance (in KM)\"",
          "recommendation": "Add a legend or key to explain the meaning of the color coding used in the 'Distance (in KM)' column to improve data interpretation.",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "The grey checkmark symbol in the 'Visited' column for 'Kollam' is ambiguous without a legend.",
          "location": "Table 'Visited' column, row for 'Kollam'",
          "recommendation": "Provide a legend or explanation for the different colored checkmarks/symbols in the 'Visited' column, especially for the grey checkmark, to clarify their meaning.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Consider aligning numerical columns ('% of Pendency', 'New Filings', 'Distance (in KM)') with a consistent horizontal alignment (e.g., all center or all right) to enhance visual order.",
        "Add a legend or key to explain the meaning of the color coding used in the 'Distance (in KM)' column to improve data interpretation.",
        "Provide a legend or explanation for the different colored checkmarks/symbols in the 'Visited' column, especially for the grey checkmark, to clarify their meaning."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_4": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)`\n**Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)\nCourt Complex\nKollam\nPunalur\nKadakkal\nKarungapally\nChittumala\nParavur\nKottarakara\nSasthamcotta\nPathanapuram\nChandayamangalam\nChavara\nRCP\nNet Connectivity\nBAR Pulse\ne-Sewa Kendra\nRCP: Remote Court Point | Pathanapuram is a satellite court of Punalur\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 45\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 18\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Missing legend for table status indicators",
          "location": "Table data",
          "recommendation": "Add a legend or key to explicitly explain the meaning of different colors and symbols (e.g., green checkmark, red cross, various gauge colors, greyed-out icons, and question marks) to ensure clearer data interpretation for all states.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Add a legend or key to explicitly explain the meaning of different colors and symbols (e.g., green checkmark, red cross, various gauge colors, greyed-out icons, and question marks) to ensure clearer data interpretation for all states."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_5": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 0 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN, not a quality problem or design flaw.**\n\n**⛔ ABSOLUTELY DO NOT FLAG ANY OF THESE AS ISSUES:**\n\n1. **Faded/low-contrast background elements** (text, icons, graphics) - INTENTIONAL\n2. **Ghosted or semi-transparent numbers/text** - INTENTIONAL\n3. **Washed out or greyed elements** - INTENTIONAL\n4. **Low contrast text, icons, or shapes** - INTENTIONAL\n5. **Dotted lines or separators that are low contrast** - INTENTIONAL\n6. **Shadow effects that appear incomplete or faded** - INTENTIONAL\n7. **Background elements that are hard to read** - INTENTIONAL\n8. **Any visual element that appears dimmed, greyed, or de-emphasized** - INTENTIONAL\n9. **Inconsistent styling between bright and dimmed elements** - INTENTIONAL\n10. **Visibility issues with background/context elements** - INTENTIONAL\n11. **Title-content alignment issues** - INTENTIONAL (title stays same while focus shifts)\n\n**This is a presentation FEATURE, not a bug. It's a sophisticated technique for controlling audience attention.**\n\n**✅ ONLY flag issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT elements:**\n- If the MAIN/BRIGHT content has alignment problems\n- If the MAIN/BRIGHT content has actual readability issues\n- If there are layout problems unrelated to dimming\n\n**If you see faded/greyed/dimmed elements, DO NOT create any issues about them. They are intentional and serve a clear purpose.**\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Untitled Slide`\n**Content:** Content for slide 5\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 4\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_8": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 9\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_9": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 9\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "The slide title states '5 key pre-requisites' but the main content lists 6 items.",
          "location": "Slide title and main content table",
          "recommendation": "Ensure the number of pre-requisites in the slide title accurately reflects the number of items listed in the content, or adjust the content to match the title.",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "The 'Courier Service go-live' callout box uses a '1' in a different visual style, which may cause confusion with the main numbered list that also starts with '1'.",
          "location": "Courier Service go-live callout box",
          "recommendation": "Clarify the purpose of the '1' in the 'Courier Service go-live' box and ensure consistent numbering or clear visual differentiation if it represents a separate sequence from the main list.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Ensure the number of pre-requisites in the slide title accurately reflects the number of items listed in the content, or adjust the content to match the title.",
        "Clarify the purpose of the '1' in the 'Courier Service go-live' box and ensure consistent numbering or clear visual differentiation if it represents a separate sequence from the main list."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_10": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 9\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent use of separator lines in list elements",
          "location": "Right content panel, list items",
          "recommendation": "Ensure all list items in the right panel have consistent separator lines, or remove them entirely for a cleaner look.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Minor misalignment of column header",
          "location": "Right content panel, 'Date' column header",
          "recommendation": "Consider aligning the 'Date' column header more precisely with the dates below it for improved visual order.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Ensure all list items in the right panel have consistent separator lines, or remove them entirely for a cleaner look.",
        "Consider aligning the 'Date' column header more precisely with the dates below it for improved visual order."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_11": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 9\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Slight vertical misalignment between table headers and content",
          "location": "Table on the right, specifically between 'Action'/'Date' headers and the text below them",
          "recommendation": "Consider adjusting the vertical alignment of the table content to match the headers for a more polished look.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Text in box 3 appears slightly off-center",
          "location": "Box 3 ('Resource Allocation')",
          "recommendation": "Consider adjusting the horizontal alignment of the text 'Resource Allocation' and '10th October' to be perfectly centered within its box.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify the relationship between the '5 key pre-requisites' in the title, the numbered boxes, and the 'Action' table. Ensure all 'key pre-requisites' are clearly presented or explain why some are dimmed if they are not active.",
        "Consider adjusting the vertical alignment of the table content to match the headers for a more polished look.",
        "Consider adjusting the horizontal alignment of the text 'Resource Allocation' and '10th October' to be perfectly centered within its box."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_12": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 9\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent text alignment within the structured list",
          "location": "Main list under 'Action' and 'Date' headers",
          "recommendation": "Consider aligning the content within both 'Action' and 'Date' columns consistently, for example, left-aligning both, to improve visual harmony and alignment structure.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Consider aligning the content within both 'Action' and 'Date' columns consistently, for example, left-aligning both, to improve visual harmony and alignment structure."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_13": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 9\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent font weight for content text within the main table",
          "location": "Main table, 'Action' and 'Date' columns",
          "recommendation": "Ensure consistent font weight for all content text within the table. Either make both 'Action' text and 'Date' text regular or both bold for better visual consistency.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Ensure consistent font weight for all content text within the table. Either make both 'Action' text and 'Date' text regular or both bold for better visual consistency."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_14": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\nFull ownership by the Program Team to enable operationalization\n(3 court complexes per team member)\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 24\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 3\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_15": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites`\n**Content:** Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites\n* Risk due to Qtr. End + festivals\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 14\n- **Bullet points:** 1\n- **Content lines:** 2\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Non-sequential numbering in the table",
          "location": "'#' column of the table",
          "recommendation": "Correct the numbering in the '#' column to ensure a sequential and logical order for table entries, improving overall readability and data structure.",
          "priority": "critical"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Text partially obscured by visual elements",
          "location": "'Outputs' column, specifically for 'Go-live date approval' and 'Expanded Jurisdiction notified (HC>CJM>>>)'",
          "recommendation": "Adjust the layout to ensure all text in the 'Outputs' column is fully visible and not obscured by borders or other visual elements.",
          "priority": "critical"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent cell formatting with borders",
          "location": "'End Timeline' column, specific date cells (e.g., 9-Oct, 1-Oct*, 6-Oct, 30-Oct)",
          "recommendation": "Ensure consistent cell formatting in the 'End Timeline' column by removing the inconsistent black borders or applying them uniformly with a clear purpose if they are meant to highlight specific dates.",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Missing legend for asterisk symbol",
          "location": "'End Timeline' column, dates marked with an asterisk (e.g., 1-Oct*)",
          "recommendation": "Add a legend or footnote to explain the meaning of the asterisk symbol used in the 'End Timeline' column, ensuring all data points are clearly understood.",
          "priority": "high"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Correct the numbering in the '#' column to ensure a sequential and logical order for table entries, improving overall readability and data structure.",
        "Adjust the layout to ensure all text in the 'Outputs' column is fully visible and not obscured by borders or other visual elements.",
        "Ensure consistent cell formatting in the 'End Timeline' column by removing the inconsistent black borders or applying them uniformly with a clear purpose if they are meant to highlight specific dates.",
        "Add a legend or footnote to explain the meaning of the asterisk symbol used in the 'End Timeline' column, ensuring all data points are clearly understood."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_24": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Expansion across Kollam`\n**Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 19\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 3\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_25": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load`\n**Content:** There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 53\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 10\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_26": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well`\n**Content:** There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\nThrissur\n9478 Cases | 25% of Total Cases\nPalakkad\n3529 Cases | 9% of Total Cases\nKottayam\n2850 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 74\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 16\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Misalignment of legend color squares with text labels",
          "location": "Legend at the bottom left",
          "recommendation": "Align the colored squares precisely with the baseline of their respective text labels to ensure visual consistency and neatness.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent vertical alignment of data callout boxes",
          "location": "Data callout boxes around the map",
          "recommendation": "Consider establishing a more consistent vertical alignment for the callout boxes on each side of the map (e.g., aligning their top edges or centers to an invisible grid) to improve overall visual order.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Footer text not aligned with page number",
          "location": "Bottom right footer",
          "recommendation": "Align the text 'Average of filings in last 5 years' to the same horizontal line as the page number '26' to improve visual balance and consistency in the footer.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Align the colored squares precisely with the baseline of their respective text labels to ensure visual consistency and neatness.",
        "Consider establishing a more consistent vertical alignment for the callout boxes on each side of the map (e.g., aligning their top edges or centers to an invisible grid) to improve overall visual order.",
        "Align the text 'Average of filings in last 5 years' to the same horizontal line as the page number '26' to improve visual balance and consistency in the footer."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_27": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing `\n**Content:** Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing \nspecial NIA Courts are to be converted to ON Courts\n1\n2\n3\nOption\nON Court set-up as a new Court\nNew Magistrate onboarded for legacy cases\nSplit date/ time of existing Magistrate\nClear Separation of Old & New cases\nExisting Magistrate to focus solely on new cases\n- Might cause confusion for Advocates, Court Staff\n- NJDG Data skewed\nNo excess budgets required\nPros\nBudgetary Provisions required\nBudgetary Provisions required\nCons\nLegacy cases transferred to GramNyayalaya\n4\nInfrastructure & Magistrate exist\nPermission to use GramNyayalaya\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 95\n- **Bullet points:** 2\n- **Content lines:** 22\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Consider aligning all primary, non-dimmed text within the 'Pros' and 'Cons' cells consistently (e.g., all left-aligned) to improve visual harmony and readability.",
        "Ensure a consistent presentation style, such as the use of bullet points or plain text, for all primary, non-dimmed content within the 'Pros' and 'Cons' cells to maintain a cohesive visual style."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_28": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Aesthetics Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria:\n- **Whitespace is EXPECTED and GOOD** - these slides should be minimalist and impactful\n- **Page numbering handled by brand compliance** - don't flag here\n- **Minimal content is NORMAL** - these slides communicate one key message\n- **Center alignment is STANDARD** - announcement slides often center content\n- **No bullet points expected** - single-fact slides are typically clean and simple\n- **Low content density is APPROPRIATE** - these slides are meant to be simple and memorable\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Excessive whitespace or low content density\n- Missing page numbering (handled in brand compliance)\n- Sparse content or underutilization of space\n- Underutilization of slide space\n- Unconventional placement (centering is standard)\n- Content-free areas or empty regions\n- Minimalist design choices\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for color contrast and blurriness\n// - Low contrast text that is illegible or hard to read\n// - Faded or washed out content elements\n// - Poor color contrast between text and background\n// - Blurry or pixelated imagery\n- Misaligned elements (different from intentional centering)\n- Inconsistent visual styling within the slide\n\n**Note: Text/font size is checked in static analysis - do not evaluate here.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** `Key asks/unlocks required from HC`\n**Content:** Key asks/unlocks required from HC\n\n**Current Metrics:**\n\n- **Word count:** 5\n- **Bullet points:** 0\n- **Content lines:** 1\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY of the criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** any elements that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility issues with dimmed elements (\"almost invisible\", \"barely visible\")\n- Shadow effects on dimmed elements (cut-off, incomplete, faded shadows)\n- Alignment, spacing, or styling of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Inconsistencies involving dimmed elements\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE the primary, bright, fully-visible content elements.**\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Density\n\n- Is the slide overloaded with information?\n- Can the audience absorb this amount of content effectively?\n- Is the content appropriately dense for the message?\n- **Density appropriateness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Readability & Scan-ability\n\n- Can the content be quickly scanned and understood?\n- Are key points easily identifiable?\n- Is the text hierarchy clear?\n- **Readability score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Bullet Point Effectiveness\n\n- Are bullet points used appropriately?\n- Is each bullet point concise and impactful?\n- Do bullets support or distract from the message?\n- **Bullet effectiveness score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Text Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual hierarchy in the content?\n- Are main points distinguished from details?\n- Is the information prioritized correctly?\n- **Hierarchy clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Cognitive Load\n\n- Is the mental effort required to process this slide appropriate?\n- Would the audience be overwhelmed or underwhelmed?\n- Is complexity balanced with clarity?\n- **Cognitive load score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Slide Purpose Alignment\n\n- Is the content density appropriate for the slide's purpose?\n- Does the amount of content match the intended impact?\n- Is this slide trying to do too much or too little?\n- **Purpose alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Page Numbering Compliance\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Page numbering is handled by the Brand Compliance analysis.**\n**Do NOT evaluate or flag page numbering issues here for ANY slide.**\n- Page numbering is checked separately in brand compliance\n- Do not mention missing page numbers in your response\n- Do not include page numbering recommendations\n\n### 8. Text Formatting Consistency\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: Do NOT evaluate slide title formatting.**\n- Slide titles are evaluated separately - ignore any formatting in the title\n- Focus ONLY on content/body text formatting\n\nFor content/body text only:\n- Is text formatting consistent throughout the slide content?\n- Are similar content elements formatted similarly?\n- Is there appropriate and consistent use of bold, italic, underline?\n\n**Do NOT flag these intentional formatting choices:**\n- Highlighting key dates, numbers, or metrics in different colors\n- Emphasis on important terms using bold or color\n- Color-coding for categorization (e.g., red for risks, green for success)\n- Deliberate visual distinction for quotes or callouts\n\n**ONLY flag if:**\n- Random/inconsistent formatting with no clear purpose\n- Formatting that reduces readability or causes confusion\n- Provide SPECIFIC details: what elements, what colors, what's inconsistent\n\n- **Formatting consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 9. Visual Hierarchy\n\n- Is there clear visual distinction between different content levels?\n- Are headings, subheadings, and body text properly differentiated?\n- Is the visual priority aligned with content importance?\n- **Visual hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n### 10. Spacing, Rhythm & Alignment\n\n- Is spacing between elements consistent and appropriate?\n- Are text blocks and elements properly aligned?\n- Is there adequate white space distribution?\n- Are margins and padding consistent throughout?\n- Does the layout create visual flow?\n- **Spacing & alignment score (1-10)**\n\n### 11. Conclusion Banner Compliance\n\n- If conclusions are present, are they properly formatted?\n- Is there appropriate visual emphasis for conclusions?\n- Does the conclusion presentation follow guidelines?\n- **Conclusion formatting score (1-10)**\n\n### 12. Content Structure\n\n- Is the slide content structurally organized?\n- Are lists, paragraphs, and sections clearly defined?\n- Is the overall layout logical and clean?\n- **Structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 13. Whitespace Management\n\n- Does the slide maintain approximately 40% whitespace?\n- Is whitespace well distributed across the slide?\n- Are there areas of overcrowding or excessive emptiness?\n- **Whitespace distribution score (1-10)**\n\n### 14. Text Formatting & Symmetry\n\n- Is text formatted symmetrically and consistently?\n- Are similar elements aligned and balanced?\n- Is there visual harmony in text placement?\n- **Text symmetry score (1-10)**\n\n### 15. Content Density & Line Optimization\n\n- Is text limited to one line where possible?\n- Are multi-line items appropriately structured?\n- Is content density appropriate for readability?\n- **Line optimization score (1-10)**\n\n### 16. Sub-point Consistency\n\n- Are sub-point lengths consistent across the slide?\n- Do bullet points follow consistent formatting?\n- Is there visual rhythm in list structures?\n- **Sub-point consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 17. Professional Aesthetics\n\n- Does the slide have a professional, polished appearance?\n- Are design elements cohesive and intentional?\n- Does the layout support the content effectively?\n- **Professional aesthetics score (1-10)**\n\n### 18. Consistency Patterns\n\n- Are design elements consistent with established patterns?\n- Do fonts, sizes, and styles follow a coherent system?\n- Is there visual consistency across similar elements?\n- **Consistency pattern score (1-10)**\n\n### 19. Alignment & Grid Structure\n\n- Are elements properly aligned to an underlying grid?\n- Is there systematic alignment of text and objects?\n- Do alignments create visual order?\n- **Alignment structure score (1-10)**\n\n### 20. Proportional Relationships\n\n- Are element sizes proportionally related?\n- Is there appropriate scale variation for hierarchy?\n- Do proportions feel harmonious?\n- **Proportional harmony score (1-10)**\n\n### 21. Table Readability & Clarity (if table present)\n\n**⚠️ ALWAYS evaluate this section if the slide contains a table, chart, or data visualization.**\n\n- **Color coding clarity**: Are color-coded elements explained with a legend or key?\n- **Symbol consistency**: Are symbols (checkmarks, crosses, icons) used consistently?\n- **Column headers**: Are all columns clearly labeled and understandable?\n- **Data interpretation**: Can the audience immediately understand what the data represents?\n- **Visual cues**: Are different visual states (colors, symbols) clearly distinguished and explained?\n- **Legend presence**: Is there a legend or key for any color coding, symbols, or visual patterns?\n\n**Common table issues to check:**\n- Missing legends for color-coded data\n- Ambiguous or inconsistent symbols (e.g., gray checkmarks vs green checkmarks)\n- Unclear column meanings or data categories\n- Color coding without explanation (red/yellow/green zones, etc.)\n- Multiple symbol types without a key\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems that severely impair readability (illegible text, broken layouts, table misalignment)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps or significant quality issues (missing critical information, poor contrast)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues that affect comprehension (confusing organization, unclear hierarchy)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (text alignment adjustments, spacing tweaks, whitespace optimization)\n\n**IMPORTANT: Use \"suggestive\" priority for:**\n- All text alignment issues (Section 10, 19) - e.g., \"Consider aligning text blocks to improve visual harmony\"\n- Whitespace optimization suggestions (Section 13) - e.g., \"You might want to adjust spacing between elements\"\n- Minor spacing and rhythm improvements (Section 10) - e.g., \"It would improve readability if margins were more consistent\"\n- Symmetry refinements (Section 14) - e.g., \"Consider adjusting text placement for better symmetry\"\n\n**Tone Guidelines:**\n- For \"suggestive\" issues: Use collaborative language like \"Consider...\", \"You might want to...\", \"It would improve if...\"\n- For \"critical\"/\"high\"/\"medium\": Use directive language like \"Fix...\", \"Correct...\", \"Ensure...\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Text alignment inconsistency detected\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Consider aligning bullet points to the left margin for better visual consistency\",\n    \"priority\": \"suggestive\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Table misalignment affecting readability\",\n    \"location\": \"Data table\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Fix column alignment to ensure data is clearly readable\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    }
  },
  "data-source-compliance": {
    "slide_1": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:07:51.327Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court\"\n**Content:** Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_2": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:07:54.325Z)\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 4 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN, not a data quality issue.**\n\nFocus ONLY on the primary/bright content. DO NOT evaluate or flag data/citations in dimmed/greyed areas - they're intentionally de-emphasized to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag title-content alignment issues - the title remains consistent while focus shifts.\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Expansion across Kollam\"\n**Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_3": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:07:59.007Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion\"\n**Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_4": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:07:59.423Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)\"\n**Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)\nCourt Complex\nKollam\nPunalur\nKadakkal\nKarungapally\nChittumala\nParavur\nKottarakara\nSasthamcotta\nPathanapuram\nChandayamangalam\nChavara\nRCP\nNet Connectivity\nBAR Pulse\ne-Sewa Kendra\nRCP: Remote Court Point | Pathanapuram is a satellite court of Punalur\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_5": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:07:49.531Z)\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 0 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN, not a data quality issue.**\n\nFocus ONLY on the primary/bright content. DO NOT evaluate or flag data/citations in dimmed/greyed areas - they're intentionally de-emphasized to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag title-content alignment issues - the title remains consistent while focus shifts.\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Untitled Slide\"\n**Content:** Content for slide 5\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_8": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:07:51.116Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_9": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:19.554Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_10": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:22.557Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_11": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:29.299Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_12": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:33.435Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_13": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:46.476Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_14": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:36.770Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\nFull ownership by the Program Team to enable operationalization\n(3 court complexes per team member)\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_15": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:59.497Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites\"\n**Content:** Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites\n* Risk due to Qtr. End + festivals\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_24": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:08:56.996Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Expansion across Kollam\"\n**Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_25": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:09:07.318Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load\"\n**Content:** There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_26": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:09:14.095Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well\"\n**Content:** There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\nThrissur\n9478 Cases | 25% of Total Cases\nPalakkad\n3529 Cases | 9% of Total Cases\nKottayam\n2850 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Missing source citation for statistical data on NIA case pendency",
          "location": "Quantitative data for each district (Kollam, Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Kozhikode, Thrissur, Palakkad, Kottayam) and the statement 'Average of filings in last 5 years'",
          "recommendation": "Add a clear source citation for the NIA case pendency data, specifying its origin (e.g., 'Source: Judicial Department, Government of Kerala' or 'Source: Internal analysis of public court records')",
          "priority": "critical"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Add a clear source citation for the NIA case pendency data, specifying its origin (e.g., 'Source: Judicial Department, Government of Kerala' or 'Source: Internal analysis of public court records')"
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_27": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:09:13.090Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing \"\n**Content:** Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing \nspecial NIA Courts are to be converted to ON Courts\n1\n2\n3\nOption\nON Court set-up as a new Court\nNew Magistrate onboarded for legacy cases\nSplit date/ time of existing Magistrate\nClear Separation of Old & New cases\nExisting Magistrate to focus solely on new cases\n- Might cause confusion for Advocates, Court Staff\n- NJDG Data skewed\nNo excess budgets required\nPros\nBudgetary Provisions required\nBudgetary Provisions required\nCons\nLegacy cases transferred to GramNyayalaya\n4\nInfrastructure & Magistrate exist\nPermission to use GramNyayalaya\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_28": {
      "prompt": "# Data Source Compliance Analysis v2 (Analysis ID: 2025-11-10T05:09:25.401Z)\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. These slides typically contain NO quantitative data requiring citations.\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Missing citations for operational dates (Go-Live dates, deadlines, milestones)\n- Missing citations for informational content (announcement text, title information)\n- Missing citations for simple facts or declarative statements\n- Any content that is purely informational or organizational\n\n**✅ DO flag these issues (if present in title/announcement slides):**\n- Actual quantitative data without citations (statistics, percentages, research findings)\n- Financial figures or metrics without source attribution\n- Survey results or research claims without references\n- Comparative data or performance numbers without citations\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, ALWAYS return empty array [] unless there is ACTUAL quantitative data (statistics, percentages, research findings) present.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Key asks/unlocks required from HC\"\n**Content:** Key asks/unlocks required from HC\n\n---\n\n**CRITICAL: DATA TYPE DETECTION FIRST**\nBefore evaluating citations, you MUST identify the slide's data type:\n\n1. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - EXTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **External statistics and research findings** (from studies, surveys, reports)\n   - **Market data and industry benchmarks** (market size, industry trends, competitor data)\n   - **Published performance metrics** (from external organizations, research papers)\n   - **Survey results from external sources** (customer satisfaction studies, market research)\n   - Example: \"75% of users prefer mobile apps (Forrester 2024)\", \"Market size of $50B (Gartner)\", \"Industry average response time of 2 seconds\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from OUTSIDE your organization based on research/studies\n\n2. **RESEARCH FINDINGS - INTERNAL** (requires citation):\n   - **Primary research conducted internally** (user surveys, customer interviews, usability testing)\n   - **Secondary research/analysis by internal teams** (market analysis, data studies, research reports)\n   - **Internal research-based metrics** (findings from internal studies, research conclusions)\n   - Example: \"75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024)\", \"User testing showed 80% success rate (UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\", \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand (Research Team)\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data from YOUR organization based on systematic research/study (not just tracking metrics)\n   - **Why citation needed**: Provides methodology transparency, study timeframe, sample size context\n\n3. **OPERATIONAL/PLANNING DATA** (NO citation needed):\n   - **Resource allocations** (budget distributions, team assignments, FTE allocations)\n   - **Project-specific numbers** (project budget, team size, allocated resources)\n   - **Internal timelines and dates** (project deadlines, go-live dates, milestone dates)\n   - **Tracked operational metrics** (current user count, current completion rate, system uptime)\n   - **Organizational structure data** (number of teams, reporting lines, department sizes)\n   - Example: \"Budget allocation: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\", \"Team of 15 engineers\", \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\", \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\"\n   - **KEY DISTINCTION**: Data about YOUR organization's operations, resources, and plans (not research findings)\n\n4. **OPERATIONAL INFO** (NO citation needed):\n   - Dates, timelines, milestones, deadlines\n   - Status updates, Go-Live dates, completion dates\n   - Internal process information\n   - Example: \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Oct 10\", \"5 prerequisites by deadline\"\n\n5. **QUALITATIVE PROCESS** (NO citation needed):\n   - Process steps, prerequisites, action items\n   - Planning content, organizational structure\n   - Workflow descriptions, implementation steps\n   - Example: \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\", \"Test system\"\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Data Presence Detection\n- Does this slide contain **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (external OR internal)?\n- **Distinguish carefully**:\n  - **RESEARCH FINDINGS** (needs citation):\n    - External: Market research, industry statistics, published studies, benchmarks\n    - Internal: User surveys, customer interviews, usability testing, internal research studies\n  - **OPERATIONAL DATA** (NO citation): Budget allocations, team sizes, resource distributions, project timelines, tracked metrics\n- **Only flag citation issues if RESEARCH FINDINGS are present (external or internal)**\n\n### 2. Source Citation Compliance (for ALL research findings)\n- Are all research-based data points properly cited?\n- For INTERNAL research: Does citation include study name, team, and timeframe?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source information complete and accessible?\n- Are citations formatted consistently?\n\n### 3. Source Credibility (for ALL research findings)\n- Are the cited sources credible and authoritative?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is the research team/methodology credible?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Is source quality appropriate for the claim?\n- Are sources recent and relevant?\n\n### 4. Footnote Formatting (only if footnotes exist)\n- Are footnotes properly formatted and positioned?\n- Is footnote color appropriate? (Note: Text size is checked in static analysis)\n\n### 5. Data Transparency (for ALL research findings)\n- Is the data methodology clear?\n- For INTERNAL research: Is sample size, timeframe, or methodology mentioned?\n- For EXTERNAL research: Are limitations or caveats acknowledged?\n\n### 6. Reference Completeness (only if references exist)\n- Do references include all necessary information?\n- Can the audience easily verify the sources?\n\n**IMPORTANT RULES - DO NOT FLAG THESE (Operational/Planning Data):**\n- ❌ Resource allocations (e.g., \"$2M budget allocation\", \"3 FTEs assigned\")\n- ❌ Internal project numbers (e.g., \"Team of 15 people\", \"5 milestones completed\")\n- ❌ Operational dates/timelines (e.g., \"Go-Live: Oct 31\", \"Completed by Q2\")\n- ❌ Tracked operational metrics (e.g., \"Currently 500 active users\", \"System uptime: 99.9%\")\n- ❌ Process steps/prerequisites (e.g., \"Setup infrastructure\", \"Train users\")\n- ❌ Qualitative content (e.g., descriptions, plans, organizational structure)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - External):**\n- ✅ External statistics needing citations (e.g., \"75% of users prefer mobile apps\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Market data without sources (e.g., \"Market size of $50B\" - needs source like Gartner/Forrester)\n- ✅ Industry benchmarks uncited (e.g., \"Industry average response time is 2 seconds\" - needs source)\n- ✅ Published research claims (e.g., \"Studies show that...\" - needs specific study citation)\n\n**ALWAYS FLAG THESE (Research Findings - Internal):**\n- ✅ Internal survey results uncited (e.g., \"75% user satisfaction\" - needs \"Internal Q3 Survey 2024\")\n- ✅ User research findings uncited (e.g., \"80% task success rate\" - needs \"UX Research Team, Oct 2024\")\n- ✅ Customer interview insights uncited (e.g., \"60% demand for feature\" - needs \"Customer Research Team\")\n- ✅ Internal study conclusions (e.g., \"Improved productivity by 30%\" - needs research study citation)\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for data source issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Critical quantitative data without any source citation (statistics, financial figures with no attribution)\n- **\"high\"** - Quantitative data with incomplete citations (missing methodology, date, or organization)\n- **\"medium\"** - Citation formatting inconsistencies or minor source credibility concerns\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Not typically used for data source compliance (citation issues are generally high priority)\n\n**EXAMPLES TO CLARIFY:**\n\n❌ **DO NOT FLAG** (Operational/Planning Data - NO citation needed):\n- \"Budget: $2M for infrastructure, $1M for training\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Team of 15 engineers and 3 designers\" ← Team structure\n- \"Currently 500 active users on our platform\" ← Tracked operational metric\n- \"System uptime: 99.9% this quarter\" ← Tracked performance metric\n- \"Assigned 3 FTEs to this task\" ← Resource allocation\n- \"Go-Live date: October 31, 2024\" ← Project timeline\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (External Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% of consumers prefer mobile shopping\" ← External research, needs source like \"(Forrester 2024)\"\n- \"E-commerce market size: $50B\" ← External market data, needs source like \"(Gartner 2024)\"\n- \"Industry standard response time is 2 seconds\" ← External benchmark, needs source\n- \"Studies show 60% improvement in efficiency\" ← External research claim, needs specific study\n\n✅ **DO FLAG** (Internal Research Findings - citation needed):\n- \"75% user satisfaction rate\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)\"\n- \"User testing showed 80% task success\" ← Internal research, needs \"(UX Research Team, Oct 2024)\"\n- \"Customer interviews revealed 60% demand\" ← Internal research, needs \"(Customer Research Team, Sept 2024)\"\n- \"Productivity improved by 30%\" ← Internal study, needs \"(Internal Efficiency Study, Q2 2024)\"\n\n**CRITICAL DISTINCTION:**\n- \"Currently 500 users\" (operational tracking) ≠ \"User survey found 75% satisfaction\" (research finding)\n- \"Team of 15\" (operational fact) ≠ \"Employee survey showed 80% engagement\" (research finding)\n- \"Budget: $2M\" (planning data) ≠ \"Cost analysis showed 30% savings\" (research/analysis)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing source citation for external market data\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point stating 'E-commerce market size: $50B'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add source citation (e.g., 'E-commerce market size: $50B (Gartner 2024)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"critical\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing citation for internal research finding\",\n    \"location\": \"Bullet point stating '75% user satisfaction rate'\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add citation with study details (e.g., '75% user satisfaction (Internal Q3 Survey 2024, n=500)')\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Incomplete citation - missing publication date\",\n    \"location\": \"Footnote 1 citing Forrester report\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Include publication date in the source citation\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  }\n]\n\n**CRITICAL**: Return empty array [] if slide contains ONLY operational/planning data. Flag issues for BOTH external AND internal RESEARCH FINDINGS that lack proper citations.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    }
  },
  "imagery-guidelines": {
    "slide_1": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court\"\n**Content:** Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_2": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 4 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN for images/graphics, not a quality problem or design flaw.**\n\n**⛔ ABSOLUTELY DO NOT FLAG ANY OF THESE AS IMAGERY ISSUES:**\n- Faded/low-contrast images or icons - INTENTIONAL\n- Washed out or greyed graphics - INTENTIONAL\n- \"Blurry\" or soft-focus visual elements - INTENTIONAL (it's dimming, not blur)\n- Low contrast icons, graphics, or decorative elements - INTENTIONAL\n- Any image/icon that appears dimmed or de-emphasized - INTENTIONAL\n- Visibility or clarity issues with background/context graphics - INTENTIONAL\n- Image-title alignment issues (title stays same while visual focus shifts) - INTENTIONAL\n\n**This is a presentation FEATURE, not a bug. Dimmed images serve a clear purpose in progressive reveal.**\n\n**✅ ONLY flag if PRIMARY/BRIGHT images have:**\n- Actual pixelation or resolution problems\n- Genuine distortion or stretching\n- Real quality defects (not dimming)\n\n**If images/icons appear faded, DO NOT flag them. This is intentional design to maintain context while focusing attention.**\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Expansion across Kollam\"\n**Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_3": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion\"\n**Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_4": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)\"\n**Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)\nCourt Complex\nKollam\nPunalur\nKadakkal\nKarungapally\nChittumala\nParavur\nKottarakara\nSasthamcotta\nPathanapuram\nChandayamangalam\nChavara\nRCP\nNet Connectivity\nBAR Pulse\ne-Sewa Kendra\nRCP: Remote Court Point | Pathanapuram is a satellite court of Punalur\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_5": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 0 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN for images/graphics, not a quality problem or design flaw.**\n\n**⛔ ABSOLUTELY DO NOT FLAG ANY OF THESE AS IMAGERY ISSUES:**\n- Faded/low-contrast images or icons - INTENTIONAL\n- Washed out or greyed graphics - INTENTIONAL\n- \"Blurry\" or soft-focus visual elements - INTENTIONAL (it's dimming, not blur)\n- Low contrast icons, graphics, or decorative elements - INTENTIONAL\n- Any image/icon that appears dimmed or de-emphasized - INTENTIONAL\n- Visibility or clarity issues with background/context graphics - INTENTIONAL\n- Image-title alignment issues (title stays same while visual focus shifts) - INTENTIONAL\n\n**This is a presentation FEATURE, not a bug. Dimmed images serve a clear purpose in progressive reveal.**\n\n**✅ ONLY flag if PRIMARY/BRIGHT images have:**\n- Actual pixelation or resolution problems\n- Genuine distortion or stretching\n- Real quality defects (not dimming)\n\n**If images/icons appear faded, DO NOT flag them. This is intentional design to maintain context while focusing attention.**\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Untitled Slide\"\n**Content:** Content for slide 5\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_8": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_9": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_10": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_11": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_12": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_13": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_14": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\"\n**Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\nFull ownership by the Program Team to enable operationalization\n(3 court complexes per team member)\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_15": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites\"\n**Content:** Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites\n* Risk due to Qtr. End + festivals\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_24": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Expansion across Kollam\"\n**Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_25": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load\"\n**Content:** There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_26": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well\"\n**Content:** There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\nThrissur\n9478 Cases | 25% of Total Cases\nPalakkad\n3529 Cases | 9% of Total Cases\nKottayam\n2850 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "The color palette used in the map visualization (teal, yellow, grey) appears inconsistent with the green color used in the 'PUCAR' brand logo.",
          "location": "Map of Kerala and 'PUCAR' logo",
          "recommendation": "Align the color palette for data visualizations with the overall brand aesthetic. Ensure the chosen colors are either primary brand colors or part of an approved secondary brand palette to maintain visual consistency.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Align the color palette for data visualizations with the overall brand aesthetic. Ensure the chosen colors are either primary brand colors or part of an approved secondary brand palette to maintain visual consistency."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_27": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing \"\n**Content:** Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing \nspecial NIA Courts are to be converted to ON Courts\n1\n2\n3\nOption\nON Court set-up as a new Court\nNew Magistrate onboarded for legacy cases\nSplit date/ time of existing Magistrate\nClear Separation of Old & New cases\nExisting Magistrate to focus solely on new cases\n- Might cause confusion for Advocates, Court Staff\n- NJDG Data skewed\nNo excess budgets required\nPros\nBudgetary Provisions required\nBudgetary Provisions required\nCons\nLegacy cases transferred to GramNyayalaya\n4\nInfrastructure & Magistrate exist\nPermission to use GramNyayalaya\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_28": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Imagery Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for imagery:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Logo/branding images (these are STANDARD and appropriate)\n- Official emblems and organizational logos (these are EXPECTED)\n- Decorative/background elements (these are NORMAL and acceptable)\n- Minimalist imagery or simple graphics (appropriate for announcement slides)\n- Images that don't directly illustrate content (title slides often use branding/decorative images)\n- Generic or symbolic imagery (common for title/announcement slides)\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast\n// - Blurry or pixelated images (low resolution/quality)\n- Stretched or distorted images (incorrect aspect ratio)\n- Poorly cropped or cut-off images\n- Images with visible compression artifacts\n// - Extremely low contrast images that are hard to see\n- Images that appear corrupted or broken\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on IMAGE QUALITY (resolution, clarity, proper rendering) rather than content-image alignment or relevance.**\n\n\n**Slide Title:** \"Key asks/unlocks required from HC\"\n**Content:** Key asks/unlocks required from HC\n\n---\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL INSTRUCTION FOR ALL SECTIONS BELOW 🚨**\n\nWhen evaluating ANY imagery criteria below, **COMPLETELY IGNORE** images/icons/graphics that are:\n- Greyed out or dimmed (typically 10-70% opacity or RGB 200-250)\n- Faded, washed out, or semi-transparent\n- Ghosted or de-emphasized\n- Background/context elements that are intentionally less prominent\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Visibility or clarity issues with dimmed images\n- Quality, contrast, or resolution of greyed/dimmed elements\n- Any visual issues with intentionally faded/dimmed graphics\n\n**ONLY EVALUATE primary, bright, fully-visible images and graphics.**\n\n---\n\n## Imagery Guidelines to Evaluate\n\n### 1. Image Presence & Relevance\n\n- Are there images present on this slide?\n- Do images support and enhance the message?\n- Are images relevant to the content and context?\n- **Image relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Image Quality Assessment\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for quality/contrast\n// - Do images appear to be high-resolution?\n// - Are there signs of pixelation or quality degradation?\n// - Is image clarity appropriate for professional presentation?\n// - **Image quality score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for blurriness and contrast**\n\n### 3. Visual Impact & Effectiveness\n\n- Do images enhance understanding of the content?\n- Are images engaging and visually appealing?\n- Do images add value or are they decorative only?\n- **Visual impact score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Brand Consistency\n\n- Do images align with overall brand aesthetic?\n- Are image styles consistent across the presentation?\n- Do images support the professional tone?\n- **Brand consistency score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Accessibility & Clarity\n\n// COMMENTED OUT: Too many false positives for contrast/visibility\n// - Are images clear and easy to interpret?\n// - Would images be understood by the target audience?\n// - Are important details visible and not obscured?\n// - **Accessibility score (1-10)**\n\n**⚠️ SKIP THIS SECTION - Too many false positives for contrast and visibility**\n\n### 6. Neutral Tint Compliance\n\n- Do images appear to have appropriate neutral treatment?\n- Are colors balanced and professional?\n- Is there excessive saturation or color bias?\n- **Neutral tint compliance score (1-10)**\n\n### 7. Information Hierarchy\n\n- Do images support or compete with text hierarchy?\n- Are most important images given prominence?\n- Is visual weight distributed appropriately?\n- **Information hierarchy score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities for imagery issues:\n- **\"critical\"** - Corrupted or broken images only\n- **\"high\"** - Major structural issues (severely distorted aspect ratios, cut-off critical content)\n- **\"medium\"** - Brand consistency concerns (color saturation, neutral tint compliance)\n- **\"suggestive\"** - Minor aesthetic improvements (image placement suggestions, decorative element choices)\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG:** Blurriness, pixelation, low resolution, low contrast, or quality issues (too many false positives)\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image aspect ratio severely distorted\",\n    \"location\": \"Center of slide showing product screenshot\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Restore original aspect ratio to prevent distortion of visual elements\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Image colors appear over-saturated\",\n    \"location\": \"Background image\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Apply neutral tint to reduce color saturation and maintain professional tone\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\nBe specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    }
  },
  "slide-content": {
    "slide_1": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court`\n**Slide Content:** Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_2": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 4 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN, not a content issue or incompleteness.**\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG for progressive reveal slides:**\n- Title-content alignment issues (the title stays the same while focus shifts through content)\n- Title not reflecting current focused content (intentional - shows overall topic)\n- Title being too broad for specific content shown (intentional design pattern)\n\nFocus ONLY on evaluating the primary/bright content. DO NOT flag dimmed/greyed content as incomplete, missing, or unclear - it's intentionally de-emphasized to maintain context while focusing attention.\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Expansion across Kollam`\n**Slide Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_3": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion`\n**Slide Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Unclear meaning of distance ranges",
          "location": "Distance (in KM) column",
          "recommendation": "Clarify what the distance ranges represent (e.g., 'Distance from Kollam (in KM)') and explain why the distance is presented as a range rather than a single value.",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Ambiguous status for 'Kollam' in 'Visited' column",
          "location": "Visited column, row for Kollam",
          "recommendation": "Clarify the meaning of the grey checkmark for 'Kollam'. Explain if it signifies a different type of visit, partial visit, or if Kollam is the central hub not counted within the '8/10' complexes, to avoid confusion with the green/red indicators.",
          "priority": "high"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify what the distance ranges represent (e.g., 'Distance from Kollam (in KM)') and explain why the distance is presented as a range rather than a single value.",
        "Clarify the meaning of the grey checkmark for 'Kollam'. Explain if it signifies a different type of visit, partial visit, or if Kollam is the central hub not counted within the '8/10' complexes, to avoid confusion with the green/red indicators."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_4": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)`\n**Slide Content:** 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)\nCourt Complex\nKollam\nPunalur\nKadakkal\nKarungapally\nChittumala\nParavur\nKottarakara\nSasthamcotta\nPathanapuram\nChandayamangalam\nChavara\nRCP\nNet Connectivity\nBAR Pulse\ne-Sewa Kendra\nRCP: Remote Court Point | Pathanapuram is a satellite court of Punalur\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Unclear meaning of status indicators (gauges)",
          "location": "Columns 'BAR Pulse' and 'Net Connectivity'",
          "recommendation": "Provide a clear legend or key explaining what each color (green, yellow, red, grey) and fill level on the gauges represents in terms of readiness or connectivity status.",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Ambiguous grey status indicators",
          "location": "Rows 'Kollam', 'Chittumala', 'Chandayamangalam' and their respective status columns",
          "recommendation": "Add a footnote or key to define what the grey checkmark and grey question mark symbols signify (e.g., 'Under Evaluation', 'Data Not Available', 'Not Visited').",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistency in the number of court complexes presented",
          "location": "Overall table content in relation to the implied scope from the slide title",
          "recommendation": "Clarify the discrepancy between the 12 complexes listed in the table and the '8/10 court complexes visited' mentioned in the slide title (provided for context). Ensure the number of complexes evaluated or presented is consistent with the stated scope.",
          "priority": "high"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Provide a clear legend or key explaining what each color (green, yellow, red, grey) and fill level on the gauges represents in terms of readiness or connectivity status.",
        "Add a footnote or key to define what the grey checkmark and grey question mark symbols signify (e.g., 'Under Evaluation', 'Data Not Available', 'Not Visited').",
        "Clarify the discrepancy between the 12 complexes listed in the table and the '8/10 court complexes visited' mentioned in the slide title (provided for context). Ensure the number of complexes evaluated or presented is consistent with the stated scope."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_5": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**🚨 CRITICAL: PROGRESSIVE REVEAL SLIDE - READ THIS CAREFULLY 🚨**\n\nThis slide uses **PROGRESSIVE REVEAL** - a professional presentation technique with 0 intentionally dimmed elements.\n\n**📚 WHY PROGRESSIVE REVEAL IS USED (Educational Context):**\n\nProgressive reveal is a **deliberate, beneficial presentation technique** that:\n- **Shows the full picture** while **focusing attention** on specific content\n- **Provides context** by displaying previously covered items in a dimmed state\n- **Guides the narrative** by showing where we are in the flow\n- **Prevents information overload** by emphasizing one point at a time\n- **Helps the audience follow along** by showing completed vs. current steps\n- **Maintains visual continuity** across multiple slides in a sequence\n- **Uses the SAME TITLE across multiple slides** while content focus shifts - This is a standard progressive reveal pattern\n\n**This is INTENTIONAL DESIGN, not a content issue or incompleteness.**\n\n**⚠️ DO NOT FLAG for progressive reveal slides:**\n- Title-content alignment issues (the title stays the same while focus shifts through content)\n- Title not reflecting current focused content (intentional - shows overall topic)\n- Title being too broad for specific content shown (intentional design pattern)\n\nFocus ONLY on evaluating the primary/bright content. DO NOT flag dimmed/greyed content as incomplete, missing, or unclear - it's intentionally de-emphasized to maintain context while focusing attention.\n\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Untitled Slide`\n**Slide Content:** Content for slide 5\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_8": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify the specific details for 'Notification' (e.g., what is being notified, to whom), 'Resource Allocation' (e.g., what resources are being allocated, for what purpose), and 'Tech. Ready' (e.g., which technology is being made ready, for what specific function or system). Even with verbal explanation, greater specificity on the slide itself would enhance clarity."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_9": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Discrepancy between the stated number of prerequisites and the actual count",
          "location": "Slide title and main table content",
          "recommendation": "The slide title mentions '5 key pre-requisites', but the main table lists 6 items. Either update the title to '6 key pre-requisites' or adjust the list to clearly identify and present only 5.",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Unclear relationship of 'Courier Service go-live' to the main list of prerequisites",
          "location": "Left box with 'Courier Service go-live'",
          "recommendation": "Clarify if 'Courier Service go-live' is one of the prerequisites, an outcome of the prerequisites, or a separate but related milestone. Integrate it logically into the main list or explain its context.",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Ambiguous numbering '1' in the left box",
          "location": "Left box with 'Courier Service go-live'",
          "recommendation": "The number '1' in the box above 'Courier Service go-live' is confusing as it doesn't align with the numbered list of prerequisites. Remove it or clarify its meaning.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "The slide title mentions '5 key pre-requisites', but the main table lists 6 items. Either update the title to '6 key pre-requisites' or adjust the list to clearly identify and present only 5.",
        "Clarify if 'Courier Service go-live' is one of the prerequisites, an outcome of the prerequisites, or a separate but related milestone. Integrate it logically into the main list or explain its context.",
        "The number '1' in the box above 'Courier Service go-live' is confusing as it doesn't align with the numbered list of prerequisites. Remove it or clarify its meaning."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_10": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Inconsistent numbering and unclear presentation of the '5 key pre-requisites'",
          "location": "Overall slide content, specifically the relationship between the left boxes and the right table",
          "recommendation": "Clearly list and number all 5 prerequisites in a consistent format. For example, use a single list or a unified table, ensuring all 5 items are visually distinct and easy to track.",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Ambiguous statement for 'Bar aligned by HC'",
          "location": "Right table, item 4",
          "recommendation": "Clarify what 'Bar' refers to in this context and what 'aligned by HC' specifically means.",
          "priority": "high"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clearly list and number all 5 prerequisites in a consistent format. For example, use a single list or a unified table, ensuring all 5 items are visually distinct and easy to track.",
        "Clarify what is being notified, to whom, and its significance. For instance, 'Notification of [Specific Policy/Process] to [Target Audience]'.",
        "Specify the type or context of 'physical evidence' and to whom the SOPs are being notified.",
        "Clarify the specific jurisdictions involved and what 'HC > CJM >>' signifies in terms of the expansion. While acronyms are permitted, the '>>' is unclear even with verbal explanation.",
        "Clarify what 'Bar' refers to in this context and what 'aligned by HC' specifically means."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_11": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Unclear phrasing for action item",
          "location": "Action table, second item",
          "recommendation": "Rephrase 'Missing e-Sewa Kendra help arranged' for clarity. It is ambiguous whether the help itself was missing or if help was arranged to address a missing e-Sewa Kendra. Consider options like 'Help arranged for e-Sewa Kendra gap' or 'Arrangement made to address missing e-Sewa Kendra'.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Rephrase 'Missing e-Sewa Kendra help arranged' for clarity. It is ambiguous whether the help itself was missing or if help was arranged to address a missing e-Sewa Kendra. Consider options like 'Help arranged for e-Sewa Kendra gap' or 'Arrangement made to address missing e-Sewa Kendra'."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_12": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_13": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Ambiguity in the consolidated date for 'Testing & Trainings'",
          "location": "Testing & Trainings summary box on the right",
          "recommendation": "Clarify if '30th October' in the summary box refers to the final completion date for all testing and training prerequisites (1-4), or if it represents a different milestone. If it's an overarching deadline, consider rephrasing to explicitly state this relationship to the individual dates listed in the main table.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify if '30th October' in the summary box refers to the final completion date for all testing and training prerequisites (1-4), or if it represents a different milestone. If it's an overarching deadline, consider rephrasing to explicitly state this relationship to the individual dates listed in the main table."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_14": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct`\n**Slide Content:** 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct\nFull ownership by the Program Team to enable operationalization\n(3 court complexes per team member)\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_15": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites`\n**Slide Content:** Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites\n* Risk due to Qtr. End + festivals\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Unclear notation for jurisdiction progression",
          "location": "Output: 'Expanded Jurisdiction notified (HC>CJM>>>)'",
          "recommendation": "Clarify the meaning of the '>>>' notation. If it indicates a specific hierarchy or progression, use a more standard or explained format.",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Awkward phrasing for resource arrangement",
          "location": "Output: 'Missing Resource/Infra arranged'",
          "recommendation": "Rephrase for better clarity, e.g., 'Resources/Infra arranged' or 'Resolution of Missing Resources/Infra', as 'Missing Resource/Infra arranged' is slightly contradictory.",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Informal notation for personnel reference",
          "location": "Output: 'BAR consultations/alignment by HC [J. Raja]'",
          "recommendation": "Consider removing the bracketed name if it's an internal note, or integrate it more formally into the text if it's essential for the audience (e.g., 'BAR consultations/alignment by J. Raja (HC)').",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Punctuation for list enumeration",
          "location": "Output: 'Run-through testing- Internal, community, On-ground'",
          "recommendation": "Replace the hyphen with a colon for better grammatical structure, e.g., 'Run-through testing: Internal, community, On-ground'.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Informal language for deployment",
          "location": "Output: 'Standees/ Phy. IEC put up in each court complex'",
          "recommendation": "Use more formal language such as 'Standees/Phy. IEC installed' or 'deployed in each court complex'.",
          "priority": "suggestive"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify the meaning of the '>>>' notation. If it indicates a specific hierarchy or progression, use a more standard or explained format.",
        "Rephrase for better clarity, e.g., 'Resources/Infra arranged' or 'Resolution of Missing Resources/Infra', as 'Missing Resource/Infra arranged' is slightly contradictory.",
        "Expand 'digital exp.' to its full meaning (e.g., 'digital experience', 'digital expertise', 'digital expansion') for complete clarity, or ensure it is explicitly explained verbally.",
        "Consider removing the bracketed name if it's an internal note, or integrate it more formally into the text if it's essential for the audience (e.g., 'BAR consultations/alignment by J. Raja (HC)').",
        "Replace the hyphen with a colon for better grammatical structure, e.g., 'Run-through testing: Internal, community, On-ground'.",
        "Use more formal language such as 'Standees/Phy. IEC installed' or 'deployed in each court complex'."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_24": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Expansion across Kollam`\n**Slide Content:** Expansion across Kollam\nScale-up to other districts in KL\nThe agenda for the day is Scale-up of ON Court\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Analysis completed"
      ],
      "rating": 9
    },
    "slide_25": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load`\n**Slide Content:** There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Discrepancy between the stated number of 'Special NIA Courts' and the data presented.",
          "location": "Overall slide content, specifically the list of courts and their data.",
          "recommendation": "The slide states '3 special NIA Courts' and the map highlights three yellow regions as 'Special NIA Courts'. However, data for four locations is presented, with Kollam identified as a '24X7 ON Court'. Clarify which three courts are the 'Special NIA Courts' and their combined contribution to the 35% caseload. If Kollam's data is relevant, explicitly state its type and its relationship to the 'Special NIA Courts' (e.g., 'Kollam: A 24x7 ON Court, for comparison').",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "The calculation of '35% of case load' is not explicitly shown for the three special NIA courts.",
          "location": "The claim '35% of case load' and the individual court percentages.",
          "recommendation": "Add a subtotal for the three 'Special NIA Courts' (Kozhikode, Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram) to explicitly show how their combined caseload totals 35% (or 35.5%), confirming the claim in the main statement.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "The slide states '3 special NIA Courts' and the map highlights three yellow regions as 'Special NIA Courts'. However, data for four locations is presented, with Kollam identified as a '24X7 ON Court'. Clarify which three courts are the 'Special NIA Courts' and their combined contribution to the 35% caseload. If Kollam's data is relevant, explicitly state its type and its relationship to the 'Special NIA Courts' (e.g., 'Kollam: A 24x7 ON Court, for comparison').",
        "Add a subtotal for the three 'Special NIA Courts' (Kozhikode, Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram) to explicitly show how their combined caseload totals 35% (or 35.5%), confirming the claim in the main statement."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_26": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well`\n**Slide Content:** There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well\nAverage of filings in last 5 years\nKollam\n1578 Cases | 4% of Total Cases\nThiruvananthapuram\n3976 Cases | 10% of Total Cases\nErnakulam\n7391 Cases | 18.5% of Total Cases\nKozhikode\n2816 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\nThrissur\n9478 Cases | 25% of Total Cases\nPalakkad\n3529 Cases | 9% of Total Cases\nKottayam\n2850 Cases | 7% of Total Cases\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "The denominator for percentages ('Total Cases') is unclear",
          "location": "District data points (e.g., '4% of Total Cases')",
          "recommendation": "Clarify what 'Total Cases' refers to (e.g., 'Total NIA Cases in Kerala', 'Total Cases in the District', or 'Total Cases of this type') to provide proper context for the percentages.",
          "priority": "high"
        },
        {
          "issue": "The relationship between court types and case pendency is not explicitly stated",
          "location": "Map and legend",
          "recommendation": "Briefly explain how the presence or absence of '24X7 ON Court' or 'Special NIA Court' relates to the 'high NIA case pendency' being highlighted, or what insight these court types offer regarding the pendency data.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify what 'Total Cases' refers to (e.g., 'Total NIA Cases in Kerala', 'Total Cases in the District', or 'Total Cases of this type') to provide proper context for the percentages.",
        "Briefly explain how the presence or absence of '24X7 ON Court' or 'Special NIA Court' relates to the 'high NIA case pendency' being highlighted, or what insight these court types offer regarding the pendency data."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_27": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing `\n**Slide Content:** Legacy Cases will have to be managed if existing \nspecial NIA Courts are to be converted to ON Courts\n1\n2\n3\nOption\nON Court set-up as a new Court\nNew Magistrate onboarded for legacy cases\nSplit date/ time of existing Magistrate\nClear Separation of Old & New cases\nExisting Magistrate to focus solely on new cases\n- Might cause confusion for Advocates, Court Staff\n- NJDG Data skewed\nNo excess budgets required\nPros\nBudgetary Provisions required\nBudgetary Provisions required\nCons\nLegacy cases transferred to GramNyayalaya\n4\nInfrastructure & Magistrate exist\nPermission to use GramNyayalaya\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "The description for 'Option 3' is slightly ambiguous",
          "location": "Option 3, 'Option' column",
          "recommendation": "Clarify the phrasing for 'Split date/ time of existing Magistrate' to be more explicit, such as 'Split existing Magistrate's time between old and new cases' or 'Designate specific time slots for existing Magistrate' to avoid initial confusion.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Clarify the phrasing for 'Split date/ time of existing Magistrate' to be more explicit, such as 'Split existing Magistrate's time between old and new cases' or 'Designate specific time slots for existing Magistrate' to avoid initial confusion."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    },
    "slide_28": {
      "prompt": "# Slide Content Evaluation\n\n\n**⚠️ TITLE/ANNOUNCEMENT SLIDE DETECTED ⚠️**\n\nThis is a title slide, announcement slide, or single-fact slide. Apply DIFFERENT evaluation criteria for content:\n\n**❌ Do NOT flag as issues for title/announcement slides:**\n- Generic slide titles like \"Untitled Slide\" or missing titles (banner slides often don't have descriptive titles)\n- Missing action verbs or passive voice (announcement slides are informational, not action-oriented)\n- Content matching or repeating title (this is by design for emphasis)\n- Lack of supporting evidence, examples, or data (announcement slides communicate facts, not arguments)\n- Absence of actionable insights or next steps (informational slides don't need to drive action)\n- \"Purely informational\" content (this is the PURPOSE of announcement slides)\n- Minimal content or low word count (these slides should be simple and memorable)\n- One-line content or single statements (expected for single-fact slides)\n- Declarative statements without elaboration\n\n**✅ DO flag these legitimate issues (always, even for title/announcement slides):**\n- Grammatical errors or typos in the title or content\n- Unclear or confusing wording that obscures the message\n- Inconsistent terminology or naming within the slide\n- Factual inaccuracies or contradictions\n- Overly complex language that reduces clarity\n- Missing critical information that makes the announcement incomplete\n\n**IMPORTANT: For title/announcement slides, focus on CLARITY and CORRECTNESS of the message, NOT on action-orientation, supporting evidence, or title descriptiveness.**\n\n\n**Slide Title (for reference only):** `Key asks/unlocks required from HC`\n**Slide Content:** Key asks/unlocks required from HC\n\n---\n\n**🎯 EVALUATION FOCUS: CONTENT ONLY 🎯**\n\n**IMPORTANT:** This analysis focuses EXCLUSIVELY on the slide content. DO NOT evaluate or flag issues with the slide title. The title is provided only for context to help you understand what the content is about.\n\n**📢 CRITICAL: UNDERSTANDING VOICE-AUGMENTED PRESENTATIONS 📢**\n\nThis presentation is designed for **ORAL DELIVERY with VOCAL NARRATIVE**. The slides are **VISUAL GUIDES**, not standalone documents.\n\n**KEY PRINCIPLES:**\n- **Slides are intentionally concise** - The presenter will verbally explain details not shown on slides\n- **Missing context is EXPECTED** - Details, explanations, and nuances will be provided during oral presentation\n- **Brevity is a FEATURE, not a bug** - Minimal text with verbal elaboration is BEST PRACTICE in presentation design\n- **Assume the presenter will fill in gaps** - The audience will receive complete information through speech + visuals\n\n**This is HIGH-QUALITY presentation design: concise visual guides + rich verbal narrative.**\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Title issues (passive voice, lack of action verbs, clarity, character count, etc.)\n- Title-content alignment issues\n- Any problems with how the title is written\n- **Acronyms or abbreviations** - Presentations are written for specific audiences. Assume the audience knows them OR the presenter will explain verbally.\n- **Faded, dimmed, or greyed-out elements** - These are intentional design choices (progressive reveal) to maintain context while focusing attention. DO NOT flag them as unclear, incomplete, or missing information.\n- **Brief or concise content that relies on verbal explanation** - This is INTENTIONAL and represents good presentation practice\n- **Missing background or context** - Assume the presenter will provide this verbally\n- **Lack of detailed explanations** - Details will be explained during oral delivery\n\n**ONLY FLAG:**\n- Issues with the PRIMARY/BRIGHT content (completeness, clarity, evidence, organization) **that would confuse even with verbal explanation**\n- Content that is genuinely unclear or contradictory **even assuming verbal augmentation**\n- DO NOT flag content that appears in dimmed/faded areas\n- DO NOT flag brevity or missing details that can reasonably be explained verbally\n\n---\n\n## Evaluation Criteria\n\n### 1. Content Completeness\n\n**Remember: This is a voice-augmented presentation. Evaluate completeness assuming verbal narration will accompany the slide.**\n\n- Is the content complete enough to guide a presenter's narrative?\n- Are there any critical gaps that CANNOT be filled by verbal explanation?\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual anchors for the presenter?\n- Is the information specific enough to be meaningful with verbal context?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Brief bullet points that will be expanded verbally\n- Missing definitions that can be explained orally\n- Lack of background context that presenters typically provide\n- Concise statements that serve as speaking points\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- The content is so vague it cannot guide a meaningful discussion\n- Critical information is missing that would confuse even with explanation\n\n- **Completeness score (1-10)**\n\n### 2. Evidence Quality\n\n**Remember: Detailed evidence and examples are often provided verbally during presentations.**\n\n- Does the content provide sufficient visual evidence or data points to support the narrative?\n- Are key metrics or examples shown where they enhance understanding?\n- Is the visual evidence appropriate for the message?\n\n**DO NOT FLAG:**\n- Missing detailed examples that can be discussed verbally\n- Lack of exhaustive evidence lists (presenters will elaborate)\n- Brief statements without full supporting details\n- High-level claims that will be backed up during presentation\n\n**ONLY FLAG if:**\n- Claims are made that require visual proof but lack it (e.g., data claims without numbers)\n- The slide makes specific quantitative claims without any supporting data\n\n- **Evidence strength score (1-10)**\n\n### 3. Content Clarity\n\n- Is the content clearly written and easy to understand?\n- Are there any confusing or ambiguous statements?\n- Is technical jargon explained or avoided when appropriate?\n- Are key points clearly articulated?\n\n**⚠️ IMPORTANT: DO NOT flag acronyms/abbreviations as unclear or unexplained jargon.**\n- Presentations are crafted for specific audiences who may already understand domain-specific terms\n- Assume the audience knows common acronyms in the presentation's context\n- Only flag if the content is genuinely confusing, not just because acronyms are present\n\n- **Clarity score (1-10)**\n\n### 4. Content Organization\n\n- Is the content logically structured?\n- Does the flow of information make sense?\n- Are key points prioritized appropriately?\n- Is there a clear progression of ideas?\n- **Organization score (1-10)**\n\n### 5. Relevance & Focus\n\n- Is all content relevant to the slide's purpose?\n- Are there irrelevant or tangential elements that should be removed?\n- Does the content stay focused on the main message?\n- Are there conflicting or contradictory points?\n- **Relevance score (1-10)**\n\n### 6. Actionability\n\n- Does the content provide actionable insights or next steps (when appropriate)?\n- Are implications or takeaways clear?\n- Can the audience understand what to do with this information?\n- **Actionability score (1-10)**\n\n**PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION:**\n\nUse the following priorities based on issue severity:\n- **\"critical\"** - Structural problems severely affecting comprehension (completely missing content, major information gaps, contradictory information)\n- **\"high\"** - Content gaps that harm understanding (insufficient evidence, missing key information, unclear critical points)\n- **\"medium\"** - Clarity issues affecting message delivery (unclear organization, weak examples, minor ambiguities)\n- **\"low\"** - Minor improvements that would enhance quality (additional supporting details, slight reorganization suggestions)\n\n**Example Issues to Flag:**\n- Missing evidence or examples: \"Add specific data points or case studies to support the claims made\"\n- Information gaps: \"Include the target completion date or expected timeline\"\n- Unclear content: \"Clarify what 'improved efficiency' means with specific metrics\"\n- Poor organization: \"Reorganize content to present problem before solution\"\n- Irrelevant content: \"Remove the sidebar discussion about budget - it's not relevant to the main message\"\n\nReturn a simple JSON array response with this format:\n\n[\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Missing specific evidence for claims\",\n    \"location\": \"Main content area\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Add specific data points, metrics, or examples to support the claims about readiness. For example, include completion percentages or readiness scores.\",\n    \"priority\": \"high\"\n  },\n  {\n    \"issue\": \"Vague terminology without definition\",\n    \"location\": \"Second bullet point\",\n    \"recommendation\": \"Define what 'full operational capacity' means in concrete terms - specify which systems, processes, or capabilities are included.\",\n    \"priority\": \"medium\"\n  }\n]\n\n**REMEMBER:** Focus ONLY on content issues. Do NOT include any issues about the slide title. Be specific about issue locations and provide actionable recommendations. Return empty array [] if no issues found.",
      "response": [
        {
          "issue": "Grammatical error in phrasing of request",
          "location": "Item 2: 'Approval on In-portal Survey of Advocates'",
          "recommendation": "Change 'Approval on' to 'Approval for' to improve grammatical correctness and clarity. The phrase should read 'Approval for In-portal Survey of Advocates'.",
          "priority": "medium"
        },
        {
          "issue": "Redundant preposition in request",
          "location": "Item 3: 'Space for the team to sit in in High Court'",
          "recommendation": "Remove the redundant 'in' to improve conciseness and grammatical correctness. The phrase should read 'Space for the team to sit in High Court' or 'Space for the team to sit within High Court'.",
          "priority": "medium"
        }
      ],
      "confidence": 95,
      "recommendations": [
        "Change 'Approval on' to 'Approval for' to improve grammatical correctness and clarity. The phrase should read 'Approval for In-portal Survey of Advocates'.",
        "Remove the redundant 'in' to improve conciseness and grammatical correctness. The phrase should read 'Space for the team to sit in High Court' or 'Space for the team to sit within High Court'."
      ],
      "rating": 7
    }
  }
}
ChakshuGautam/all-slides-feedback.md

Comprehensive Slide Feedback - PowerPoint Presentation

Summary by Slide

Slide 1: Fortnightly Review I PUCAR - High Court

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

Slide 2: Expansion across Kollam

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

Slide 3: 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited by the team to gauge readiness for expansion

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 4: 8/ 10 court complexes in Kollam visited to gauge readiness for scale (2/2)

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 5: Untitled Slide

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

Slide 8: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 9: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 10: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 11: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 12: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

Slide 13: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 14: 5 key pre-requisites for Scale-up Operationalization by 31st Oct

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

Slide 15: Summary view of Scale-up Operationalization pre-requisites

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 24: Expansion across Kollam

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 9/10)

Slide 25: There are 3 special NIA Courts in Kerala, contributing to 35% of case load

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 9/10)

Data Source Compliance (Rating: 9/10)

Imagery Guidelines (Rating: 9/10)

Slide Content (Rating: 7/10)

Slide 26: There are other districts with high NIA case pendency as well

Slide Aesthetics (Rating: 7/10)
