Deliver 10 Public Talks (Any Venue)

Proof required

Submit evidence for three delivered talks, each showing: the talk title and a one-paragraph description, the event name and approximate audience size, and evidence the talk happened (video recording, event URL or Meetup/Eventbrite link, conference program listing, or a written confirmation from the organiser). Include a brief written self-assessment after each talk noting one thing that worked and one thing to improve in the next one.

What gets checked

• Three talks to live audiences — recorded solo practice sessions without a live audience do not count; the social proof of real-time delivery to real people is the core of this outcome
• Evidence for each talk names the event, date, and audience — 'I gave a talk at work' without any corroborating evidence is not sufficient; a Meetup event link, conference programme, or organiser name is required
• Self-assessment after each talk is specific — not 'it went well' but 'the Q&A section ran over because I underestimated the engagement on the third point; I will add a time buffer in the next version'

Common mistakes

• Waiting for a large or prestigious venue before the first talk — the first three talks are specifically for learning and feedback; they should be low-stakes (small Meetup, team meeting, community group), not a conference keynote
• Not gathering feedback from the audience — asking two or three audience members for specific feedback after each talk is how the 10-talk arc produces skill development rather than 10 repetitions of the same performance

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to describe the structure of one of the three talks — the narrative arc, the opening hook, and how they made the ending land; tests whether the talk was designed, not just improvised.
• Ask what was the worst moment in the three talks and what they learned from it — tests genuine engagement with the feedback cycle.
• Ask what the audience was like and how they adapted to the room — tests live audience reading, which is a skill distinct from talk preparation.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit evidence for talks 4–7 in the same format as M1 (event evidence + self-assessment per talk). Additionally, submit a 300-word mid-point reflection noting: the specific skill you chose to improve across this period, one talk where the improvement was clearly visible compared to the earlier talks, and one element of your speaking that still needs work.

What gets checked

• Four talks with event evidence — same standard as M1; the cumulative record must now show seven total talks, not just the M2 addition in isolation
• Mid-point reflection identifies a specific named improvement — not 'I got more confident' but 'I eliminated filler words (um/uh) from my opening by practising the first 90 seconds out loud 10 times before each talk'
• Talks 4–7 include at least one venue that is more demanding than the first three — a larger audience, a more formal event, or a more critical audience than talks 1–3

Common mistakes

• Giving the same talk four more times without modifying it based on feedback — repetition without reflection produces 10 performances of the same level rather than progression
• Avoiding the more demanding venues — it is tempting to stay in comfortable Meetup-sized settings; growth requires occasionally accepting the higher-stakes booking

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to compare talk 3 and talk 7 on a specific dimension — delivery pace, slide quality, Q&A handling — and describe what specifically changed.
• Ask about a talk in this batch that was harder than expected and what made it harder.
• Ask what they changed in their preparation process between talks 3 and 7 — tests whether the deliberate practice was systematic.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit evidence for talks 8–10 in the same format as M1, plus your speaker portfolio. The portfolio must include: a speaker bio (150–200 words), a public list of all 10 talks with title, venue, date, and audience size, links or videos where available, and a 500-word speaker retrospective covering what the 10-talk arc produced that could not have been produced by attending a single public speaking workshop.

What gets checked

• Ten talks documented in the portfolio with consistent evidence standards — every talk has a title, venue, date, and at least one form of corroborating evidence (link, video, or named organiser confirmation)
• At least one of talks 8–10 is at a venue more demanding than any in talks 1–7 — progression is the point; ending where you started means the arc produced repetition, not growth
• Retrospective makes a specific claim about what 10 repeated deliveries produce that a workshop does not — the claim must be grounded in something that happened in the talks, not a generic 'experience beats theory'

Common mistakes

• A portfolio that lists talks without evidence — a list of events without links, recordings, or organiser confirmations cannot be verified by a third party; the portfolio is the proof artifact, not the talks alone
• A retrospective that focuses on confidence rather than craft — confidence is an output, not the skill; the retrospective should describe specific craft elements (story structure, delivery technique, audience engagement) that developed over the 10 talks

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to walk through one talk in detail — the preparation process, what they were nervous about, how it went, what the audience responded to most and least.
• Ask what they would tell someone who has never given a public talk about the biggest difference between their talk 1 and talk 10 mindset.
• Ask which of the 10 talks they would most like to give again and why — tests genuine engagement with the speaking work, not mechanical completion of a target.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.