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 14 / 27
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
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
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution
45
closing
2020 firm overview
“A textbook BLUF-and-refrain opening attached to a P&L-line-item analytical dump and an inflated appendix — use slides 2, 9, 11, and 22 as title-writing exemplars, but not the overall structure as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or ask — p.25 summarizes performance but the deck lacks a 'so what / next' slide before agenda placeholders and appendix
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
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
2018 True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight
“A textbook analytical build with strong data-led action titles, but it skips the Resolution act - use p14-p28 as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not as a model for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No synthesis/recommendation slide - deck ends on 'ready?' (p51), 'Thank you' (p52), and a BD pitch (p53); the reader never gets the 'so what, do this'
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
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing
42
closing
Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale
“Textbook McKinsey answer-first diagnostic with a strong front-loaded thesis and clean MECE sector build — use the opening (pp.6-10) and the per-sector template (pp.38-48) as Storymakers exemplars, but do not copy its closing, which buries the recommendation under 70 pages of appendix.”
↓ Closing collapses into appendix: pp.164-234 are methodology, statistical tests and the kommissorium, with no recommendation/roadmap slide before the appendix split
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'
42
closing
Project Spiritus Final report Market Study
“Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — closing growth-opportunities slide (p.92) is descriptive, not prescriptive; deck never tells the reader what to do
42
closing
Scalar calibration For Life insurance business
“A competent two-part technical memo with disciplined callouts but topic-label titles and an appendix-buried structure — useful as a teaching example for callout writing and case-study framing, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Action titles default to noun phrases ('DESIGN DECISIONS: …', 'COUNTRY-SPECIFIC DETAILED ANALYSIS – …') instead of insights, forcing the reader to extract the point from the callout.
42
closing
Solving fashion’s product returns
“A British Fashion Council research report dressed as a deck — strong evidence, well-quantified problem, and excellent recommendation/case-study pairing, but inconsistent action titles and a placeholder-titled call-to-action mean it is a useful exemplar for analytical build-up and case-study integration, not for Storymakers structural discipline.”
↓ ~14 slides use the deck title 'Solving Fashion's Product Returns' as the slide title (pp.8, 19, 21, 26, 35, 42, 55, 59, 60, 64, 81, 82, 85, 87), forfeiting the action-title slot entirely.
42
closing
Market Year in Review and Outlook 2021
“A competent industry-association data briefing with a few exemplary action titles and callouts, but structurally an analytical dump with empty dividers, mid-deck methodology, and a non-sequitur close — useful as a teaching example for individual slide titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ p.4 section divider wastes a structural slot by just repeating the deck title instead of naming the pillar
42
closing
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
42
closing
ALTAGAMMA 2018 WORLDWIDE LUXURY MARKET MONITOR
“A data-rich industry monitor with disciplined numeric action titles and an early-stated thesis, but it buries the 'so what' under an analytical sprawl and fades into a vague purpose exhortation — use pp. 2, 11, 18 and 26 as teaching examples of insight titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Resolution collapses into one vague slide (p. 30 'Be driven by purpose...') with no prioritized moves or owner/timeline — weak 'so what' for a 30-page build-up
42
closing
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument
42
closing
ey iif bank risk management survey
“A well-structured survey reference report with strong callouts but weak Storymakers discipline — use its front-loaded exec summary as a teaching example, but its raw 'Figure N: <question>' titles and absent recommendation are exactly what the methodology argues against.”
↓ Body-slide titles are mostly raw survey questions prefixed 'Figure N:' (pp.8,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,26,27,29,32,33) — the single biggest Storymakers failure in the deck
42
closing
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
42
closing
Gartner Introduction 2025
“A well-crafted investor introduction with a strong opening thesis and several exemplary quantified action titles, but structurally a company tour - use individual slides (pp. 3, 17, 29, 35) as Storymakers title-writing exemplars, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Repeated identical divider title 'Gartner: Who We Are' across six slides destroys MECE signaling