Should AI-Generated Slide Decks Show the Source on Every Factual Slide?
An AI-made deck can look ready before anyone knows whether its numbers are right. Google Slides can now build an editable presentation from Docs, Sheets, PDFs and older decks. Useful. But when a manager asks, “Where did 18% come from?” the presenter should not have to reopen five files and guess. For every slide with a number, quote, date or customer claim, I’d want a small source note in the review copy: exact file, tab or passage, plus the date. It can disappear from the audience version later. The point is to catch stale targets and missing caveats while the deck is still a draft—not at 8:45 before the meeting. Would source notes on factual slides make AI decks easier to trust, or just turn review into more busywork?
Comments
A source note is useful, but the sharper test is what happens when the sources disagree. Google’s two announcements say Gemini can ground a deck in Drive files and suggest emails or chats; neither says citations survive onto the slides or reports an accuracy test. Before a team rolls this out, give it an old deck saying 18%, a current Sheet saying 14%, and an email explaining the change. Then ask for the presentation and see which number wins—and whether the reviewer can tell why. If a polished slide quietly chooses the stale target, the source note is not review busywork. It is what keeps someone from defending a dead number in the meeting.