AI critiques
Storymakers reviews of every deck.
Each deck reviewed by an AI editor through the Storymakers lens — narrative arc, opening hook, closing call-to-action, and action-title quality. With a one-line verdict, top strengths and weaknesses, and three concrete fixes per deck.
1086 reviewed decks
· mean 43.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
374 matching · page 1 / 16
82
closing
Banking Consumer Study 2025
“A genuinely strong Storymakers exemplar for pillar architecture and imperative recommendation titles, weakened only by a soft, metaphor-led opening and figure pages that hide their insight in the caption.”
↓ Opening is soft: cover is metaphorical (p.1), TOC + methodology occupy p.2–3, and there is no answer-first slide stating the recommendation before the build-up begins.
82
closing
2022 commercial banking investor day
“Polished investor-day deck with strong action titles and a clean opening/closing thesis pair, but missing an explicit Complication and pillar signposting — use the title craft and closing pages as exemplars, not the overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Duplicate title on p.11 and p.16 ('Focused, strategic investments to capture organic growth...') signals a structural fault — either redundancy or unclear pillar boundaries
78
closing
L.E.K.’s 2024 ASC Insights Study Key takeaways for provider organizations
“A tight, well-titled thought-leadership teaser with a clean S->C->A->R arc — use p.4-8 action titles as a teaching example for insight-first headlines, but the methodology-heavy p.2 and soft p.11/p.13 close keep it short of exemplar status.”
↓ P.2 burns the second slide on methodology/sources rather than stakes or thesis
78
closing
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 1 Demographic dynamics
“A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.”
↓ No tension/complication slide — jumps from context (p.5) straight to data (p.6) without naming why the reader should care now
78
closing
OUR 5 URGENT ACTS
“A well-structured two-act advocacy deck with a strong diagnosis and a quotable close — use the SCQA opening (p.3-4) and the catalyst close (p.23-24) as exemplars, but flag the prescription section as a teaching case for why action lists need pillared sub-dividers and answer-first framing.”
↓ The 5 acts (p.14) are listed but never explicitly mapped back to the 43 GT gap or the p.9 sector-lag matrix, so the recommendation feels asserted rather than derived
78
closing
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
78
closing
American Express Investor Day 2024
“A disciplined, thesis-led investor-day deck with genuine MECE pillars and metric-rich action titles -- a useful Storymakers exemplar for opening structure and pillar architecture, but its navigation bloat and missing complication act make it a partial, not whole-deck, teaching reference.”
↓ Heavy navigation overhead: ~15 'Today's Focus' transitions plus 'Key Takeaways' bookends inflate the page count without adding insight
78
closing
250114 FRE prsn JPM SFO 0
“A competent investor-day narrative with a strong, memorable close but a context-heavy opening and missing complication act — useful as an example of declarative action titles and a portable closing equation, not as a model of full S-C-A-R structure.”
↓ No explicit 'complication' slide — the deck never states the tension or why-now that justifies the strategic reset
78
closing
2022 global technology
“Solid investor-day technology narrative with disciplined action titles and quantified callouts, but it reads as a capabilities tour rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.4-10 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication — p.4 frames expense growth as 'driven by investments' (a positive), missing the chance to set tension before resolving it
78
closing
Barclays Global Financial Services Conference 2023
“A disciplined, action-title-led investor update with a clear three-pillar spine but a missing Complication and a soft close — use the title craft and pillar structure as a teaching example, not the full SCQA arc.”
↓ No Complication/tension slide — the deck jumps from Purpose (p.3) to Thesis (p.4) without establishing why change is urgent
75
closing
AI at Work: What People Are Saying
“A well-executed survey-findings deck with mostly strong action titles and a correctly placed recommendation slide, but it reads as an ordered sequence of findings rather than a Storymakers-style argument - useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a structural one.”
↓ No section dividers; 8 consecutive analyze_data slides (pp.4-11) flow without pillar signposting
75
closing
20240220 Barclays UK Investor Update
“A competent investor-update deck with a clean pillar structure and a committed recommendation, but underpowered in complication-setting and answer-first opening - use pp.5-9 as a teaching example of MECE pillar-prefixed titles, not as a full narrative exemplar.”
↓ No explicit complication / 'why now' slide - the deck moves from context straight into framework, weakening narrative tension
74
closing
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
74
closing
Tested, Trusted, Transformed An exploration of the Corporate Affairs Function and its Leaders
“A competently structured research report with a memorable title device and a strong Five Maxims close, but titles carry topics not insights and the middle lacks narrative tension — use the bookend thesis and Five Maxims as teaching examples, not the interior title discipline.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly questions or topic labels rather than insights (p.9, p.11, p.13, p.14, p.25) — a reader skimming the title stream cannot reconstruct the argument
74
closing
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements
74
closing
2020 cb investor day
“A polished, on-message investor-day deck with disciplined action titles and a clean thematic spine, but it is a confidence narrative rather than a Storymakers SCQA arc — useful as an exemplar of title discipline and pillar sequencing, not as a model for tension-and-resolution storytelling.”
↓ No real Complication/tension — every slide reassures ('strong', 'well-positioned', 'substantial'), so the narrative lacks the SCQA pivot that would earn the resolution
72
closing
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
72
closing
Insurance reimagined 2025
“Competent thought-leadership white paper with a real arc and parallel recommendations, but it buries the answer and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for the imperatives section (p.18-23), not for opening craft.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Where are we now?' (p.4-6) and a duplicate 'Five trends affecting the future of insurance' (p.7 and p.13) signal recycled topic labels rather than insight titles
72
closing
Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020
“Textbook BCG analytical deck with clean MECE pillars and quantified action titles in the body, but classic objectives-first sequencing buries the lede — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and pillar discipline, not for opening or answer-first storytelling.”
↓ Buries the lede — 8 pages of objectives/approach/segmentation before the headline -15% finding on p.9; an answer-first opening would invert this
72
closing
goldman sachs dec 2023 final 12 5 23
“A competent investor-conference update with a strong closing thesis and solid peer-benchmark titles, but the front half buries the answer and the growth pillars aren't MECE-framed — use p.5-7 and p.12 as title-quality exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening three content slides (p.3 'Overview', p.4 'financial performance detail') bury the lede — no thesis until p.13
72
closing
2022 firm overview
“A confident, numbers-forward investor overview with strong action titles but a buried thesis and no MECE spine — useful as a reference for declarative, metric-anchored titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the deck takes until p.4-6 to assert leadership and until p.16 to land the ROTCE target; nothing on p.1-3 previews the answer
72
closing
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
72
closing
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
70
closing
Industrial Speedsters How advanced technologies can turbocharge your speed to market
“Competent analytical-build deck with a respectable S→C→A→R skeleton and quantified action titles — useful as a mid-tier Storymakers example, but not exemplary because the thesis is buried and pillar scaffolding is absent.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.9 — the 'Speedster' payoff concept is never previewed in the opening five slides