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 18 / 31
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
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“A short McKinsey POV primer with strong quantified action titles and a credible SCQA setup, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and impact sizing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution/recommendation slide — deck ends at slide 9 on an executive-sentiment data point with no 'so what'
35
closing
Calumet+Inc.+Carbonomics+Investor+Presentation+Final+11+Nov.+'24
“A competent investor deck with strong quantified callouts and clean two-pillar segmentation, but it buries the recommendation mid-deck and closes on reconciliations — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and segment structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slides 27–30 are EBITDA/segment reconciliations and p.31 is a bare 'CALUMET' logo — no recommendation, no next steps, no memorable close
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
LCG SMA
“A polished but conventional asset-manager pitchbook — strong on credentials and a few sharp action titles, but it buries the real 2025 story and ends without a recommendation; useful as a teaching example of topic-organized brochure structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening — pages 1–5 establish firm scale ($4.1T) but never name the question the deck answers; the reader has to wait until p.18 to find the real story (2025 underperformance).
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
Barclays Credit Bureau Forum 2023
“A competent investor-forum container with strong per-slide action titles in the BU sections but no forum-level story arc, weak opening, and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of good quantitative action titles, not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Nine-slide run pp.14-22 all titled 'Cloud Technology Platform' — pure topic labels with no insight, no progression, no action title
35
closing
20230215 Q422 FI Investor Presentation vFFF
“A competently structured FY22 fixed-income investor deck with strong MECE pillars and good metric-driven titles in the Performance section, but it is an analytical pillar-walk not a Storymakers arc — use its section architecture and action-title patterns as teaching material, not its opening or close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends on ESG ratings (p51) then appendix, leaving the reader with no 'therefore'
35
closing
HY24 BBPLC Client Information
“A competent credit-information factsheet with several well-crafted action titles, but it is a proof-point sequence, not a story — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles on individual slides, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening — the deck never states why BBPLC strength matters now or to whom (creditors? counterparties? regulators?)
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
35
closing
Client Creditor Overview July 2023
“Competent sectioned investor/creditor update with strong action titles in the strategy block but no SCQA arc and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for callout-title alignment, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on 'Sustainability at Deutsche Bank' (p.29) → footnotes → disclaimer, with no recommendation, ask, or memorable close
34
closing
Transforming the Industry that transformed the World: 01 Shift to as-a-serice
“A disciplined, template-driven thought-leadership deck with strong per-pillar rhythm but a flat overall arc and no synthesis close - use its section architecture and case-led pillar pattern as a teaching example, not its opening or ending.”
↓ No closing synthesis - deck ends inside pillar #5 (p.29) then jumps to survey-method appendix (p.30), leaving five imperatives un-prioritized and no CTA
32
closing
Year-end Macro Brief Into the Fog of Winter
“A polished macro chart pack with above-average action titles and a memorable 'winter' thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for slide-level title-writing, not for Storymakers full-arc structure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation act — deck ends on p.54's credit-crunch warning then jumps to team bio (p.55), leaving the 'so-what for executives' unanswered
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
Open Education Resources ecosystem
“Solid analytical middle with strong declarative titles, but it opens with framework scaffolding instead of a thesis and never closes with a recommendation — use pp. 8-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — p.16 is the only candidate and it defers to 'track metrics consistently', which is a process ask, not an answer
32
closing
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
32
closing
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“Evidence-rich trend primer with strong stat-titles in the middle but no resolution act — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends on a tools inventory (p.19) instead of a call to action
32
closing
e-Conomy SEA Unlocking the $200 billion digital opportunity in Southeast Asia
“A strong answer-first sizing report with disciplined declarative titles and clean MECE pillars, but it stops at diagnosis — use p4-5 and the segment-sizing run as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.”
↓ No recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends on a fraud statistic (p33) then a duplicate cover (p34)
32
closing
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“Well-architected four-pillar consulting report with a strong SCQA opening but no closing synthesis — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar structure and tension-framing, not for resolution or action-titling discipline.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on a GPS case study (p.43) then jumps to acknowledgments; the four-action framework is never recapped or converted into a call to action
32
closing
The Shopping Centre Handbook 4.0
“A competent Spanish retail-real-estate market handbook whose analytical middle is usable as a teaching example for KPI-page cadence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: topic-label titles, no call to action, and an S→A→A structure that ends on observation rather than resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere — the 'What is Next?' section (pp 26-30) ends on description, then the deck closes with a team bio (p 31)
32
closing
New Mexico State Staffing Study
“A thorough, well-templated operational diagnostic with disciplined per-function mini-arcs and quantified savings, but it reads as a reference document rather than a persuasive story — use its diagnosis-to-recommendation template as a teaching example, not its overall structure or opening/closing.”
↓ No aggregate savings / total-opportunity slide at either the opening or the close — the reader must sum ~$15M+ across 11 functional sections themselves