AI Speech & Keynote Review
Drop your script in. Four rival AIs test it for punch, pacing and credibility, then hand back the version that lands.
A tightened structure, a stronger opening and ending, and the cuts to make.
Signed off by an independent Final QA audit — with a “verify before you rely on this” list, never a black box.
Why this team
Talks fail in the writing room, not on the stage: too many messages, an opening that warms up instead of striking, an ending that trails off into thanks. The Storyteller finds the arc, Barack Obama’s seat brings the discipline of one message built to carry a room, and Hemingway cuts every sentence that exists to impress the speaker rather than move the audience. The Copywriter sharpens the lines that must be quotable, the Creative Director stages how it lands in the room, and the End-User Advocate sits in row twelve, checking their phone the moment the talk stops earning attention.
Each seat runs on a different frontier model — GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok — so it’s a genuine cross-model review, not one AI in costumes. How a run works →
What the debate sounds like
An illustrative excerpt — A CTO has eighteen minutes at an industry conference to argue that her field’s obsession with scale is producing fragile systems — and her current draft opens with thanking the organisers and an agenda slide.
Find the one sentence, because right now there are four. “We are building bigger systems and weaker ones” — that is the speech. Every story, every number, every laugh must serve that sentence or leave the draft. And the opening thanks the organisers for thirty seconds you never get back: gratitude belongs at the end, when they have a reason to feel it. Open inside the argument.
The material contains its own opening and the draft buries it in the middle: the 3 a.m. outage story — the one where the redundant system failed redundantly. Start there, in the moment, present tense, no context. The audience will lean in wondering why it matters, and the talk becomes the answer. The agenda slide is structure showing through the drywall; the story is the structure.
From row twelve: minutes six through eleven are three consecutive case studies proving the same point, and I am on my phone during the second one. One case study proves; a second one insists; a third apologises. Cut to the strongest, and spend the recovered four minutes on the thing the room actually came for — what to do about it — which the current draft compresses into ninety seconds at the end.
Questions
What should I submit — the script, the slides, or bullet points?
The script or full outline plus the occasion: audience, setting, time limit, and what you want them to think, feel or do afterwards. Slides help if they carry your structure. The time limit matters most — the honest finding in most reviews is that the draft is a thirty-minute talk wearing an eighteen-minute slot.
Can it help with delivery, or only the writing?
The review is of the material — but material determines most of delivery: a talk with one clear message, a strong opening and a built ending is dramatically easier to deliver. The synthesis marks where to pause, which line is the applause line, and the one moment to make unforgettable — the staging notes that live in the text.
This is a wedding toast / internal all-hands / lecture — same brief?
Yes — the machinery is occasion-agnostic: one message, an arc, an opening that earns attention and an ending that lands it. State the occasion honestly; the seats recalibrate what “winning the room” means for a toast versus a keynote, and the Hemingway pass is if anything more valuable when the audience is captive.
Your material is used only to run your review — never to train public models. Encrypted in transit and at rest. Security & privacy →
Want full control — pick your own minds, set the depth? Open the full council →