Speak in Public Until It Feels Natural

Proof required

Submit a log of all 5 talks: for each, the date, the audience (organisation and approximate size), the topic, the length, one thing that surprised you about how it was received, and one piece of audience feedback (written, verbal, or a follow-up question). Submit at least 1 recording or photograph showing you presenting to a live audience.

What gets checked

• At least 3 audiences are people who did not already know you — a series of talks to the same team or the same community of friends does not constitute building public speaking experience; the discomfort of unknown audiences is the critical learning condition
• At least 2 talks are 5+ minutes — a 90-second lightning talk and 4 one-minute intros do not constitute public speaking experience; depth of delivery is what reveals speaking weaknesses
• Surprise entry for each talk is specific — 'they liked it' is not a surprise; 'they spent 8 minutes asking about the third point which I had expected to be a minor detail; I had underprepared the sections they found most interesting' is

Common mistakes

• Internal team meetings without formal presentation format — a status update at a weekly standup is not a talk; a talk has a prepared structure, a defined topic, and an audience that has come specifically to hear the speaker
• Counting the same presentation to the same audience multiple times — repeating the same 20 minutes to 5 different people individually is 5 practice sessions, not 5 talks
• Relying entirely on domain expertise to carry the talk — 'I know the subject well so I don't need to prepare the delivery' is the most common public speaking error at the technical expert stage; delivery preparation is a separate skill from content preparation

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to name their biggest recurring weakness across the 5 talks — genuine experience of 5 different audiences always reveals a pattern; inability to name one means the surprise entries in the log were not analysed for patterns
• Ask what they would change about the talk structure on their next 5 — the answer reveals whether M1 produced deliberate practice (specific structural improvements) or just repetition
• Confirm 3 of the 5 audiences were genuinely unknown — ask the submitter to describe how they found the opportunity for each; this quickly reveals whether the 'unknown audience' criteria was met or circumvented
• Ask what happened when they made a mistake in one of the talks and how they recovered — genuine live speaking experience always includes at least one mistake; a submitter who has never made a mistake in 5 talks either had a much easier set of talks than the requirement implies, or has not reflected honestly

Own a milestone like this? Submit proof and invite verifiers — sign in to get started.

Proof required

Submit your talk outline (the single central idea, the 3–5 main sections, the opening and the closing in full). Submit evidence of the delivery (a recording, a conference programme showing your name, a stage photograph, or a speaker confirmation email). Submit audience feedback from at least 5 audience members or from a structured evaluation (conference rating, event form, or Q&A questions). Submit a 150-word post-delivery reflection: what worked in the opening and the closing, and the one piece of feedback you most want to act on.

What gets checked

• Single central idea is one sentence — 'I'm going to talk about AI, machine learning, and the future of work' is not a central idea; 'organisations that treat AI as a tool to replace workers consistently underperform those that treat it as a tool to augment judgment' is; the entire talk serves that one idea
• Opening and closing are distinct from the body — a talk that begins with 'so today I'm going to talk about...' and ends with 'and that's my time' has no opening or closing; an opening hooks before explaining the topic, and a closing lands the central idea without summarising the slides
• Audience feedback is from the audience, not just about the talk — 'the event organiser said it went well' is not audience feedback; written responses from 5+ attendees, a Q&A transcript, or a structured rating form from 10+ responses is

Common mistakes

• A signature talk that is a collection of slides without a central idea — slides are a visual aid, not the talk; the most common failure is building slides first and discovering that there is no central idea connecting them
• A meaningful audience that is meaningful only in number but not in unfamiliarity — 200 people you work with every day is a large audience but not a meaningful test of the talk; the audience must include people who came specifically to hear this speaker or this topic
• Structured feedback that is collected but not reflected on — the post-delivery reflection must show that the feedback influenced the reflection, not just that it was received

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to state the single central idea in one sentence — a submitter who cannot state it in one sentence has not completed the central idea work; the single sentence test is the most important quality gate for a signature talk
• Ask what their opening is, word for word — they must be able to recite it from memory; if they cannot, they have not rehearsed it enough to deliver it reliably under pressure
• Ask what the most challenging question from the Q&A was and how they answered it — genuine delivery experience always includes at least one Q&A challenge; the quality of the answer reveals whether the speaker knows the topic or knows the talk
• Ask what they would change in the outline if they gave the talk again tomorrow — the answer shows whether the audience feedback produced genuine structural insights or just validated the existing structure

Own a milestone like this? Submit proof and invite verifiers — sign in to get started.

Proof required

Submit a summary of the coaching session: the coach's name and credentials (verifiable LinkedIn or website), the 3 specific technique improvements recommended (each named precisely — not 'speak more slowly' but 'pace of 140 wpm is 20% faster than optimal for this content density; slow to 115–120 wpm on the evidence sections'), a description of the technique applied in the second delivery and the coach's assessment of the change, and any written coaching notes or assessment the coach provided.

What gets checked

• 3 technique improvements are specific and measurable — not 'be more expressive' but 'increase pitch variation on your key claims — your pitch range is currently 85–120 Hz; for impact, claims should peak at 145+ Hz'
• Second live delivery within the session — the application of the technique must be in the same session, not a promise to apply it later; real-time coaching with immediate application is what distinguishes a coaching session from a critique
• Coach's credentials are verifiable — a name and LinkedIn URL where their coaching experience is documented; 'my colleague who is good at speaking' is not a professional coach

Common mistakes

• A coaching session that consists only of feedback without a live delivery in the session — critique of a past recording is not coaching; the live delivery and in-session application are what make coaching more effective than recorded self-review
• Technique improvements that are general rather than personal — 'make more eye contact' is a general recommendation that appears in every basic public speaking book; a specific improvement is calibrated to the submitter's specific pattern (e.g. 'you consistently break eye contact to the left when you transition to a new section — replace this with a deliberate pause, which signals the transition without the eye break')
• A coach who is primarily a presentation designer or a slide consultant — the coaching must be on the delivery (voice, body, pace, structure) not on the slides

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to recite the 3 specific technique improvements and to demonstrate the one they applied in the session — a genuine coaching session leaves specific physical memories ('I was told to pause for 2 full seconds after the central idea'); a submitter who cannot demonstrate the applied technique has not practised it enough for it to be accessible under pressure
• Ask what changed in the second delivery compared to the first — the submitter must be able to describe a specific observable change, not just 'it felt better'
• Ask what the hardest technique to change is and why — the coach will have identified the technique that requires the most deliberate practice; the submitter's answer reveals whether they accepted the most uncomfortable feedback or the easiest
• Reviewer credentials check: the coach's name and LinkedIn URL must show 5+ years of professional coaching (not speaking without coaching, and not coaching without speaking experience); a Toastmasters DTM with 5+ years of active evaluation is a borderline case that the reviewer should evaluate based on the specificity of the M3 assessment

Own a milestone like this? Submit proof and invite verifiers — sign in to get started.