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
737 matching · page 12 / 31
45
closing
Customer Service Excellence 2022
“A competent Deloitte research report with a strong executive summary and several declarative insight titles, but it dissolves into topic-labelled deep-dives and has no recommendation slide — use slides 5-6, 15 and 24 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide before the team bio — closing (p.27-28) is two 'Deep-dive' appendix-style pages followed by 'Who we are'
45
closing
original
“A competent quarterly-earnings template that opens BLUF but ends in a tautology and an oversized appendix — useful as an example of disciplined callout writing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Closing slide 19 is a copy-paste of the opening slide 4 — no synthesis, no ask, no forward look
45
closing
ey q2 2020 global ipo trends report v1
“A competent quarterly market-trends report with strong regional analysis but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.6, p.13, p.15) and MECE-by-geography coverage, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends at p.25 with a soft EY house-ad and tips into a six-page appendix without a 'so what / do this next' slide
45
closing
160316 BBVA MS Conference tcm927 569522
“A competently structured investor-conference deck with a real SCQA spine and disciplined geography slides, but it under-delivers on opening hook and closing recommendation — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers closing-act model.”
↓ p.29 'Conclusions' is a label, not a recommendation — no quantified ask, no memorable close
45
closing
morgan stanley conference slides
“Investor-conference status briefing with topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for action-title coaching, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide: a reader of the action titles alone cannot answer 'what is Northern Trust IT's argument?'
45
closing
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
45
closing
2024 icc men’s t20 world cup economic impact report
“A competent answer-first economic-impact report with strong action titles and a clean two-pillar structure, but it lacks a Complication and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-led openings, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck dribbles to an end at p.29 with a media-value stat, then a disclaimer
45
closing
Goldman Sachs 2024 Aircraft Leasing Conference
“A polished investor-conference update with strong per-slide title discipline in the middle analytical run, but it opens on a results brag-wall and closes on a tagline — use p.8, p.13, and p.21 as action-title teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No thesis slide — the deck never states up front what the audience should conclude or do; p.2 'Recent Developments' is a placeholder title
45
closing
goldman sachs may 2021
“A competent IR/earnings presentation with above-average action titles, but structurally a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative design.”
↓ No Situation→Complication setup: jumps from sustainability theme (p.3-10) straight into Q1 results (p.11) with no bridging tension
45
closing
mi guide to the markets uk
“A best-in-class market reference atlas with consistent grammar and rich callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is the opposite of one — use it to teach exhibit hygiene and footnote discipline, never to teach narrative, action titles, or how to land a recommendation.”
↓ Zero executive summary or thesis page in the first 10 slides — the reader has no idea what JPM thinks before slide 50
45
closing
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
45
closing
PR Barclays Presentation 9.06.22 FINAL Update
“A competent investor-pitch deck with rigorous quantitative evidence but a weak narrative scaffold — useful as an example of strong financial pillars and supporting callouts, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening, MECE structure, or closing.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages — the merger rationale is buried at p6 behind disclaimers and bios
45
closing
Barclays Q1 2025 Review of Shareholder Activism 15 04 2025
“A data-rich quarterly market update with disciplined action titles and clean metrics, but it is a briefing — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never converts its analysis into a recommendation; use slides 11-16 as teaching examples for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No tension/complication act — the deck reports 'activity up' but never poses the 'so what' question for a target company or board
45
closing
2024 usb barclays presentation conference deck
“A competent investor-conference positioning deck with solid per-slide craft but no story arc — useful as a reference for action titles and quantitative callouts on specific slides (pp. 6, 8, 9, 13, 18), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication or thesis in the opening — pp. 3-7 establish scale but never frame a question the deck answers
45
closing
Client Creditor Overview Q3 2023 incl S&P update
“A competent IR/creditor update with strong action titles up front but a topic-dump credit-risk section and no real close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and MECE dividers in the first half, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ Creditor section (p.18–27) abandons action titles for topic labels — 'Current ratings', 'Net balance sheet', 'Derivatives bridge' — losing the insight-bearing voice
45
closing
20190312 Deutsche Bank MIT Conference
“A competent investor deck with disciplined action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens with label slides and fades out into repeated 'Announced Acquisitions' tables — useful as a teaching example for quantified titles and three-pillar structure, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Three near-identical slide titles 'Announced Acquisitions' at p.33-35 — a cardinal Storymakers sin of topic-labeling over insight
45
closing
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Fixed Income Call
“A competent IR disclosure deck with above-average action titles in the first 14 slides, but it lacks SCQA tension, has no real closing ask, and is dominated by a topic-labelled appendix — useful as a reference for declarative titling, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names what's hard (rates, CRE, TLTRO repayments), so analytical slides like p.25–27 read as disclosure, not narrative payoff
42
closing
The productivity push Powering the UK’s performance with five digital capabilities
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership piece with an exemplary MECE pillar section (p.14-30) but a marketing-style close — use the five-capability build as a teaching example of parallel pillar structure, not as a model for opening hooks or consultative recommendations.”
↓ Repetitive topic-label titles in the capability deep-dives ('Industry view', 'Capability in action' repeated 5x each) instead of slide-specific insights
42
closing
Investor Analyst Conference
“A competent investor-conference results parade with genuinely strong declarative titles in the analytical middle, but it lacks narrative tension, MECE pillar scaffolding, and a real close -- use p.6/p.11/p.13 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p.14-16) share the exact same title 'Highlights of our 360 value for all our stakeholders' -- signals a topic dump where pillar discipline should live
42
closing
Shaping Future Indian ME
“A polished industry-outlook report with strong sector-level action titles and a clear two-pillar spine, but the recommendation is a single afterthought slide — use the sector deep-dives (p.20–26) and the headroom build (p.10–11, p.27) as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Recommendation reduced to one slide (p.43) with a topic-label title and no prioritization, owner, or sequencing
42
closing
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
42
closing
SDG Guide for Business Leaders
“A competent McKinsey playbook with a strong three-pillar spine and mostly declarative titles, but it opens with two TOCs and ends with templates instead of a recommendation - use the INSPIRE/ENGAGE/IMPACT structure as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Two tables of contents back-to-back (pp.2 and 4) signal weak editorial discipline before the deck even begins
42
closing
Global Oil Outlook 2040
“A tight, well-titled market-outlook summary that opens strongly and writes excellent action titles, but stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on analysis (p.7) then boilerplate (p.8-9), violating the Resolution act
42
closing
CO2 Emissions Report
“A solid analytical benchmark report with a strong opening thesis and quantified stakes, undermined by a near-total absence of slide-level action titles and a flat 'Get in touch' close — useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline and OEM-benchmark structure, but a cautionary case for title craft.”
↓ Title repetition: ~75% of slides recycle the report tagline as the action title, forcing insight into callouts and breaking the Storymakers principle of 'read the titles, get the story'