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 10 / 16
35
closing
ROAD TO RESILIENCE
“A competently structured annual survey readout with rich data in the callouts but topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how to convert callouts into action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five consecutive slides titled 'INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHTS' (pp.12-16) signal a topic dump, not a MECE pillar; each should carry its sector name and an action verdict
35
closing
Audio today 2022 How America listens
“A thesis-driven Nielsen marketing deck with strong action titles and a memorable opening hook, but it collapses into a data dump with no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck dies in data tables (p.14-15) and a boilerplate corporate slide (p.16)
35
closing
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
35
closing
Review of 2024 capital markets performance
“A competent McKinsey market-review chartbook with strong action titles and a clever median-vs-mean build, but it lacks a resolution act and a real exec summary — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at p.13 with a trend observation rather than a recommendation or 'implications for executives' close
35
closing
Global Assignment Policies and Practices Survey
“A competent KPMG survey readout with dense data and occasional action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case of analytical-dump structure with a marketing-CTA close — useful to teach what to fix, not to imitate.”
↓ No SCQA arc — slides 6 onward are a sequential survey readout rather than a problem→analysis→answer narrative
35
closing
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent annual sustainability report with credible KPIs but topic-label titles and no SCQA spine — useful as a 'how to surface impact numbers' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Duplicate titles on pp.6–7 ('Key programmes helping us deliver on our corporate sustainability goals:') reveal the lack of distinct, MECE narrative pillars
35
closing
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely
35
closing
New-business building in 2022: Driving growth in volatile times
“A well-quantified McKinsey survey readout with disciplined action titles but no resolution — use it as a teaching example for declarative numeric titles, not for narrative arc or closes.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on p.12 description, then acknowledgments (p.13)
35
closing
The State of Fashion 2025
“An encyclopedic annual industry report with strong McKinsey-style action titles and disciplined per-theme SCQA, but it lacks an overarching arc and fizzles into pull-quotes and appendices — use the analytical sections (especially Sportswear pp.99-108 and the Global Fashion Index pp.129-141) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No synthesis slide before the appendix — pp.141-145 dribble into pull-quotes ('Fashion System', 'McKinsey Global Fashion Index') instead of a 10-theme recap or CTA
35
closing
Nearshoring in Central America
“Solid analytical FDI/macro briefing with a strong data middle but weak narrative spine — use p.2 and p.15 as examples of good action titling, not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation under appendices.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends at p.18 with conditional upside and then 5 slides of appendix/sales/bios, so the 'so what' for a decision-maker is absent
35
closing
does the us have a positive influence around the world ipsos survey 2025
“A short data-release deck that hooks with a question but never answers it — useful as a cautionary example of how strong cover questions get buried by topic-label data slides and a contact-card close.”
↓ No answer slide: the cover poses a question but no slide explicitly resolves it with a headline takeaway
35
closing
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
35
closing
Morgan+Stanley+Conference+Presentation
“A competent investor-conference showcase with strong action titles and a quantitative spine, but it is a parade of proof points rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative structure or closes.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action; deck dies into a disclaimer at p.10 and a brand plate at p.11
35
closing
apr12jlovelock 840572
“A data-rich Gartner webinar deck with strong metric-anchored titles in the middle but a missing thesis-up-front and no recommendation close — useful as a teaching example of quantitative chart titling, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis up-front — the Russia-Ukraine cover (p.3) is not answered by an executive summary slide; the viewer waits until p.9 for framing
35
closing
Global gas outlook to 2050
“A credible thought-leadership 'perspective' with strong metric-bearing action titles, but structurally a methodology-and-data dump that buries its thesis and has no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF: the thesis is never stated in the first three slides; opening is dominated by model inventory (p3) and scenario taxonomy (p4)
35
closing
Goldman Sachs Presentation Final
“A competent investor-conference deck with a strong analytical mid-section but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — use slides 7-12 as a mini exemplar of action-title + callout discipline, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides; p.3 'U.S. Bancorp' is a topic label where a point-of-view slide should be
35
closing
529 cpe
“A polished JPMorgan client-education reference deck with a solid analytical middle but a weak narrative frame — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and comparison tables, not for opening, closing, or signposting a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on disclosures (p.43-44) and a branded product page (p.45), with no 'so what should you do Monday' synthesis
35
closing
cb q1 2024 ie outlook report
“A competent JPM market-outlook brief with strong individual action titles but no narrative resolution — use slides 4, 6, 8 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on p.14 with an unresolved question and then a disclaimer
35
closing
presentation us tl strategy sma
“A textbook 4Ps JPMAM fund-marketing deck with a strong analytical middle (Case + Process) but a credentials-led opening and a data-dump close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled industry-trend pages and case studies, not for SCQA narrative structure.”
↓ Thesis is buried: pp. 1–7 are cover, TOC, divider, and firm credentials; the strategy itself doesn't appear until p.8 — no 'lead with the answer' slide.
35
closing
JPM Corp Fin Advisory Corporate Compass Jan 2024
“A high-quality analytical primer with strong action titles and dense data, but it stops at insight and never crosses into recommendation — use the body slides (p.6-10) as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p.14 closes on observation ('primed for action') instead of prescribing CFO actions
35
closing
Arion Bank Fireside chat slides
“A competent investor-update deck with strong quantified action titles and clean macro framing, but it is analytical reportage rather than a Storymakers narrative — use pp.7–10 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication or tension: the deck never names what is at stake or what decision the audience must make
32
closing
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q2 2023
“A competent investor-survey readout with a strong answer-first opening and good action titles in the middle, but it is a data report, not a story — use p.3-5 and p.12 as teaching examples of front-loaded insight, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for executives' slide — deck ends at p.16 (ESG caveat) then falls into seven appendix data tables (p.17-23) and contact info
32
closing
Climate Change: BCG’s Perspectives and Offerings
“An analytically strong, well-titled educational deck with a clean three-act spine that buries its own punchline - use p.17-p.25 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, but not as a structural exemplar because the promised 'Offerings' never land.”
↓ No answer-first slide - the thesis doesn't crystallize until p.7, and even then it's a problem statement not a recommendation
32
closing
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A credible analytical findings deck with strong diagnostic action titles but essentially no Resolution act -- use p.3, p.11, and p.14 as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is one slide (p.15) with a question-as-title -- the entire Resolution act is missing