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
635 matching · page 13 / 27
45
closing
Polish Digital Index
“A competently structured benchmark study with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it skips the upfront thesis and ends in a credentials pitch — use pp.12-18 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: the 'A. Synthesis' divider (p.3) is followed by a study-description (p.4) rather than a one-sentence answer to 'so what'
45
closing
Global Automotive Study 2023
“A well-titled, evidence-rich research-report deck whose per-slide craft is exemplary but whose overall arc is a parallel-themed survey rather than a Storymakers SCQA build — use the action titles and per-section 'How to act?' pattern as teaching examples, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — pages 1-5 are admin/methodology before the first insight on p.6
45
closing
South Africa Economic Outlook 2024 Turning short-term crises into opportunities for business value creation and societal
“Solid thematic-essay deck with disciplined action titles but no closing synthesis — useful as a teaching example for sentence-style titles, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis or explicit call-to-action — p.10 is a contacts page, not a 'so what' slide
45
closing
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“A solid analytical macroeconomic outlook with strong action titles in the diagnosis section, but it reads as a research briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative - useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for arc design or closing.”
↓ No BLUF or thesis slide in the opening - reader must infer the deck's question from the dashboard on p.3
45
closing
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“A rigorous government-commissioned diagnostic with strong quantified evidence in the middle, but it buries the recommendation under appendices and over-relies on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for Storymakers narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses into a single 'Next steps' slide (p.69) followed by 36 pages of appendix — no recommendation slide, no executive ask
45
closing
The Combustion Engine Business Model in the Age of Electromobility
“Solid analytical BCG-style build with strong action titles in the body, but it leads with topic-label summary slides and lacks a closing recommendation; use the scenario->strategy->archetype->value-matrix structure as a teaching example, not the executive bookends.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide; deck terminates on archetype analysis (p.13) and falls straight into front matter (p.14-16)
45
closing
The Future of Procurement: Why is Technology Lagging Behind?
“A solid analytical middle wrapped in a bloated front-matter and a vendor-plus-change-mgmt tail — useful as a teaching example for action titles in the p.14–25 run, but not a Storymakers exemplar for overall arc, opening, or close.”
↓ Five-slide front-matter runway (p.1–5) before any argument; no thesis-forward opener
45
closing
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry benchmark report with above-average action titles and a brave answer-first opening, but it loses the narrative arc midway and ends in an analytical dump — useful as an exemplar of declarative titling and front-loaded thesis, not of full SCQA structure.”
↓ Closing collapses into 'Additional findings' (p.24) → appendix with no recap, no decision slide, and no memorable mic-drop
45
closing
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action
45
closing
AADA Quadfecta Services for the Generative Enterprise™, 2024
“A competent analyst-report template with strong quantitative mid-section but weak Storymakers structure - useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide titles (pp. 17-19), not for narrative arc or closings.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action - the deck ends on a vendor profile (p.28) and an 'About HFS' page (p.31), so the buyer is left without a 'what to do Monday morning'
45
closing
KPMG global tech report: Financial services insights
“A competently structured three-pillar thought-leadership report with a clean Analyze→Recommend rhythm, but more thematic survey than SCQA story — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline, not of opening/closing craft.”
↓ No explicit complication slide — p.4 lists findings but does not crystallize the tension that motivates the report
45
closing
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“A well-structured BCG x Tencent market study with exemplary quantified action titles in its analytical spine, but it loses Storymakers discipline exactly where it matters most - the recommendation titles go topic-label and the deck ends in 'Thank you'; use the middle (p.4-28) as a teaching example of action-title craft, not the closing.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.43-45) are topic labels, not insights - the deck teaches action titles for 40 pages then abandons them at the punchline
45
closing
When will the knot finally unravel?
“A competent short market-update deck with disciplined quantified titles and a consistent thesis line, but it stops at outlook and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for full S-C-Q-A arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7's outlook is the de facto close, followed by filler (p.8) and front-matter (p.9)
45
closing
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A well-scaffolded research report masquerading as a deck — use its MECE divider structure and evidence mix as a teaching example, but not its titling discipline or its missing recommendation act.”
↓ Action titles are question labels, not insights — ~20 of 29 slides reuse the section question verbatim, forcing the reader to mine the callout for the point
45
closing
[Presentation title] 6th ICO / STO Report
“A competent market-update report with strong individual action titles but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for title-writing and callouts, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'Executive Summary' is a label, not an answer — a true exec summary should state the thesis in the title
45
closing
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis
45
closing
2019 Fueling Energy Future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong problem framing and declarative titles, but the recommendation is smeared across too many framework slides and the close is a marketing link — use p.3 and p.15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is diluted across seven consecutive framework slides (p.10-17 all variations of 'wise pivot') with no single climactic 'here is the answer' moment
45
closing
What’s next for digital consumers
“A solid McKinsey insight memo with declarative titles and a real complication beat, but it buries the opening thesis and has no closing recommendation — use the title craft and p.8 tension as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening is soft: p.2 is a generic 'Introduction' instead of a thesis slide, costing one of the most valuable real-estate pages.
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
Wealth and asset management 4.0
“A research-rich, well-evidenced industry report with strong action titles in the middle acts, but it buries its thesis under an 'Introduction' label and fails to land a specific recommendation across four identically-titled 'Calls to action' slides — use the mid-deck analytical titling as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ The opening buries the thesis — p.2 is titled 'Introduction' (a topic label), and the actual product-to-customer-centric argument only surfaces in the callout, not the title
45
closing
Introduction to Ipsos
“A competent corporate-intro deck with declarative titles and hard numbers, but structurally a topic tour without SCQA tension or a closing ask — use slides 5, 8, and 14 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Slides 10 and 11 carry near-duplicate titles ('OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA' / 'OUR STRATEGY BEING THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA') — wasted real estate and a signal of weak editing
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 global ipo trends 2023 q2 v1
“A competently structured EY educational primer with a 5W1H spine and a service pitch tail — useful as a teaching example of MECE topic coverage, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with questions instead of answers and closes on credentials instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are nouns or questions throughout (pp.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) — the deck never tells you the answer in the title bar
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