What the work actually involves
You receive an image of a slide — a policy options analysis, a compliance committee update, a board-level regulatory briefing, a public consultation summary — and rebuild it in Microsoft PowerPoint. Reconstruction is the floor, not the job. The substance is the critique: tightening the message hierarchy, replacing a descriptive title with an evidence-backed assertion the slide body actually supports, choosing a better exhibit, and knowing when a statutory caveat or a qualified legal conclusion must stay exactly as written even though it makes the slide uglier. Every change gets a written rationale, and so does every change you considered and rejected. The rejection notes matter as much as the edits — they are where the model learns that not all cleanup is improvement.
What the platform screens for
micro1's screen is AI-led and conversational, and it pushes on specifics. Expect questions about the kinds of decks you have personally built for senior audiences, who the audience was, and what was at stake in the wording. You will be asked to reason aloud about a slide: what is the assertion, what evidence sits under it, where would compressing the language create legal exposure. The strongest signal is the ability to separate presentation-craft judgment from legal-meaning judgment and apply different standards to each — a policy caveat is not verbosity, and a three-line bullet is not precision. Prior AI training experience is welcome but not expected; PowerPoint fluency is.
Logistics
- Fully remote, contractor engagement, asynchronous.
- Assignments are scoped at 1–2 hours each; volume is sprint-based and genuinely variable, with quiet stretches between pushes.
- You need your own licensed Microsoft PowerPoint — deliverables are native .pptx files, not Google Slides exports.
- Pay in this band has been observed at $150–350/hr; rates are set per project and per candidate and are not guaranteed by this listing.