Decagon: Connect the performance claim to customer evidence
The public deck moves quickly from growth to customer proof. We review the sequence, account for the redactions, and show where its existing customer evidence would help the story.
Reading the full deck
Reviewed all 10 pages of the public PDF. Revenue, customer counts, and several case-study results are blacked out. We assess the visible presentation without guessing those figures.
Read the source documentDecagon leads with a product category, then moves straight to growth and customer logos. It follows with its explanation for winning, its longer-term advantage, its ambition, the founders, and two customer examples. That is a sensible structure for a company whose traction can carry the pitch. The public copy makes the supporting evidence harder to assess because several of its most useful numbers are redacted.
What already works
The deck is short and gets to commercial evidence quickly. The Substack and BILT examples name specific customers and describe work the product handles. The founders’ previous companies also provide relevant context. We would retain the pace and the concrete customer material.
Walk through the original, page by page 10 pages reviewed
Page 1 · Product cover
The product category is immediately clear. The visual treatment is distinctive without requiring a long introduction.
Page 2 · Growth
The chart makes the direction obvious. The redacted revenue and customer figures prevent us from assessing scale; this is a limitation of the public copy.
Page 3 · Customer logos
Recognizable names establish credibility quickly. Add the relationship and date if these logos include a mix of pilots and paying customers.
Page 4 · Why the company wins
The short list connects business logic and feedback to resolution. Keep that argument; request the measurement definition and comparable populations before treating its percentages as a benchmark.
Page 5 · Why it can keep winning
Business logic, feedback, analytics, and integrations describe several advantages. One concrete workflow would connect those claims to the screenshot.
Page 6 · Future ambition
The ambition is unmistakable. Explain the path from today’s scope to that outcome, including where human escalation is still required.
Page 7 · Founders
The two-column structure is easy to scan. Prior company-building experience earns its place here.
Page 8 · Substack example
Cancellation and refund flows make the product tangible. The hidden results cannot be recovered from the testimonial.
Page 9 · BILT example
This adds another customer setting, but uses much the same structure. Explain what it proves that the previous example does not.
Page 10 · Closing
The final page ends the presentation cleanly. A live fundraising version should also make the requested next step explicit.
What we would change
Bring a customer example next to the performance claim.
Move the Substack workflow directly after the resolution slide. Explain the task, what the agent does, and where the human team takes over. That gives the audience something concrete to attach the number to.
Define the comparison before enlarging it.
State what counts as a resolution, which tickets are eligible, the period measured, and whether both percentages use the same test. If that information cannot be disclosed, label the figures as company claims rather than presenting a verified benchmark.
Turn the future page into a set of milestones.
Explain which support tasks are covered now and which need to be added. Connect the next investment to that work. The public copy does not give enough information to supply those milestones ourselves.
The order we’d use
Product → growth → customers → measured outcome → customer workflow → why it works → team → next milestones and request. Use the second case study to demonstrate a different capability.
The edit we would make
We would keep the original argument slide and move the existing Substack example directly after it. Making the percentages larger would add emphasis without evidence. The sequence below uses two unaltered original pages; it does not resolve the redacted results or establish a controlled comparison.
Keep the slide. Move the evidence.
The original is concise: it links business logic and feedback to better resolution. Turning two percentages into a large graphic makes the claim look more established without adding evidence. We would keep the slide and put the existing Substack example directly after it.
What changes for the reader
The next page supplies a named customer, a specific cancellation/refund workflow, and a testimonial. The audience can connect the argument to actual work before moving on to the future vision.
What still needs evidence
The case-study numbers are redacted in the public copy. The testimonial does not validate the 20% versus 90% comparison. Ask for the definition of resolution, eligible tickets, measurement period, and comparable populations before presenting it as a benchmark.
Showing what your product can do?
Give the screenshot room, then use metrics layouts for the evidence. These original source pages are not template examples.
See the Standard Deck layouts — $99