Thanks so much for sharing! I’ll give some of my thoughts that jump out. Before that I want to say that for most of the submissions for feedback I see here, most people ignore aesthetics, and it’s commendable that you put some thought into it (as it does matter!)
The points of critique for me are 1. consiceness 2. clarity 3. focus. There might be finer points in the insights but I think without these it’s hard to get to that.
Example: You title one slide:
1.2. Months with Calculable Churn Rates
and then write a subtitle:
Which months is there enough information to calculate a churn rate?
I think in these presentations you have to have a very clear sense of not using too many words. If you already say something, reserve its repetition for cases where you need to bring extra attention to its importance.
Both of these examples occur in their own independent slide:
The users were aquired by two distinct channels.
What segments of users exist?
There is two segments of users labelled as 87 and 30.
The second one is cross_join. It is necessary to later determine if a given user was active or has canceled during a given month.
If someone with less technical knowledge of your report opens it, can they really glean what you mean from these without turning a page? For the most part, slide pages should be self-sufficient in terms of information so that there is less room for confusion.
I think you took the time to show the process of calculating a churn rate, which in and of itself is not going to be interesting to someone who needs to see the numbers (unless you are specifically trying to show methodology to another analyst).
In my opinion, you can cut through the process of how to build a churn rate, and simply get to the meat of the issue: what do these specific churn rates mean for the company strategy?
I hope some of these ideas help.