The deck

index.html — one self-contained file. No build step, no dependencies, no network at run time except Google Fonts (Cormorant Garamond

DM Sans). Open it in a browser and press F.

Also published at https://claude.ai/code/artifact/a679249a-36eb-49cd-8497-114d73f19021 if the projector machine is easier to reach with a link than a file.

Driving it

Key
`→` / `space` / click	next build step, then next slide
`←`	back one step
`↑` `↓`	whole slide, skipping its builds
`G`	overview grid — click any slide to jump
`N`	presenter notes for the current slide
`T`	start / pause the 4-minute write timer (Demo C only)
`F`	fullscreen
`Home` `End`	first / last slide

Click-anywhere advances, so a handheld remote that only sends a click works.

40 slides: 6 section dividers and 34 slides, in the exact order and with the exact on-slide text of slides-brief.md. Nothing was added to the argument and nothing reordered. Presenter notes carry the spoken beats from script.md plus staging and asset asks.

What was filled in

Every Visual: and Build: line in the brief is now a real drawing. They are drawn, not photographed, in the product's own visual grammar rather than a deck style invented for the occasion. The normative sources all live in the reason-commons application repo, not this one: src/features/essay/field/field.css and src/domain/graph.ts define the grammar, and docs/product-redesign/DESIGN_RATIONALE.md says why each rule exists.

Four hues, one meaning each. sage = held or observed · rust = going wrong or in the way · accent = only proposed, or newly connected · structure = not reasoning at all (a forum, a model, a document). The brief asked for one accent reserved for one meaning; this is that, and it is the same one meaning it has in the app.
Four borders only: a node, a dashed proposal, a commons boundary, a system boundary. Everything else separating is space and typography.
Six role families by glyph, never by hue: ◎ outcome · ▲ trouble · ↳ cause · ⇄ tension · ◆ move · ◉ evidence.
The legend is on every slide that uses the notation. Not in a modal, not behind a ?.
Arrivals condense — blur to focus over five pixels. The two exceptions are the two the brief marks: the opening question evaporating, and the assumption breaking.
One field, 1200 × 600, that never changes shape. The tree of change is drawn once and then transformed by each act — populated, glossed, challenged, read, counted — rather than as unrelated pictures.

Demo B is built from the attached thread

Demo B is the pre-baked route: Problems and Possible Responses Within Our Influence (forum t/878, 20 posts, 26–31 Aug 2026), read against the tree. Four placement cards, one of each type the brief asks for:

Card	Verbatim source	Target
supports	Asimong, post 7 — "It's in the small tents that action is formulated, encouraged, and brought into reality."	claim 4.2.1, under condition 4
challenges a link	Asimong, post 8 — "what we need is mutual respect, with no expectation of coherence"	the link 6 → goal, and the assumption on it
challenges a claim	Robert Bunge, post 6 — "there is no unified forum 'goal' that applies equally to each forum participant"	the goal itself
nowhere to put it	glennr86, post 19 — "it's a long thread and admit I haven't read the whole thing (and not planning to), it's a bit overwhelming"	none — and that is the point

The assumption shared action requires a shared worldview is introduced in Demo A and breaks on screen when card 2 lands. It is the author's own named assumption, from post 2 of the same thread.

Robert's challenge to the goal is drawn standing, not struck through, and returns on the "Loaded words" slide in the close. A challenge that simply stands is the honest drawing.

Every quoted span is verbatim and continuous — shortened only by taking a shorter run, never reworded, never stitched across two of a poster's paragraphs. Checked against the source PDF and against fixtures/talk/forum-thread-878.md in the reason-commons repo, whose tests/unit/talk.test.ts enforces the same rule on its own deck.

Demo C has a review page

The room writes, and then the room's contributions get read against the tree in front of everyone: demo-c/index.html. One proposal per contribution, each landing dashed at a real address in the Second Renaissance model, with Accept / Edit / Reject. Accepted proposals turn solid and stay, so by the last one the tree on screen is the original plus everything the room agreed to. Refresh throws it all away, and saying that out loud is part of the point — nothing on disk changes.

Presenting it without having built it? docs/demo-c.md is the runbook — the URL, the fallbacks, and what to do when a reading is wrong on the night. It lives at https://reasoncommons.com/talk/2r-research-group/demo-c/index.html, and the trailing /index.html is not optional.

It is generated, not hand-authored. Download the contributions, then run the contribution-proposals skill (skills/contribution-proposals/SKILL.md), which reads them against the tree and builds the page. Work in the test route first — it stamps the page, serves it, and opens it, and it cannot touch the live one:

python3 skills/contribution-proposals/scripts/build-demo.py --proposals <file>.yaml --test --serve

Then promote it onto demo-c/, which is the route that ships:

python3 skills/contribution-proposals/scripts/build-demo.py --promote

What ships in the repo today is a rehearsal build from 2r_participant_contributions_test.docx — nine fictional participants, written independently of the tree, which is the case worth rehearsing. Four of the nine challenge a claim, one challenges a link, three add one, and one has nowhere to go. Replace it with the real batch on the day.

Two things to settle before you drive it. It opens on a challenge to the goal itself — Maya on G-1 being too broad to rule anything out — and if the room accepts that, a challenge sits on the goal for the rest of the session. Moving her later is a one-line edit. And it closes on the contribution with nowhere to go, Ana on art, celebration and grief ritual, which is the same beat Demo B ends on.

Keys: → ← move · A accept · E edit · X reject · 0 reset · End jumps to the tally. A and X toggle, so a mis-press costs one keystroke.

Before the talk

Consent. Asimong, Robert Bunge and glennr86 are quoted on slides. Public posts, but a slide is not a forum. Ask.
The reverse-view counts (3 4 2 5 2 6 1 0) are the deck's own figures and carry a date on the slide. Replace them with the real count. A number that arrives without its origin is the failure mode this whole thing exists to refuse.
Demo C kit — the shared form, its short link, and its QR. The QR on the slide is a labelled placeholder; drop the real code into the .qr block. And rebuild the review page from the real contributions once they are in; the committed one is a rehearsal.
Optional swap-ins, all working type-only today: a real dense white-paper page behind the ring on "No address"; the Life Itself logotype on the final slide; the public URL for the trees.
Demo A can go live — screen-share the tool and make the same two clicks. The drawing is the fallback and reads better from the back of a large room.

One departure from the brief, named

The brief asks for the least-supported condition to pulse in the accent colour. Accent means one thing in this grammar — proposed, or newly connected — and a condition nobody is holding is neither. So the reverse view marks it two ways instead: by absence (the other seven fill with accent ticks and it does not, which is Arnheim's point that disequilibrium is expressed by equilibrium) and by rust, which already means a thing going wrong or in the way. The alarm's boundary is drawn in words and with a count, per the review checklist's question 17.