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
130 matching · page 2 / 6
62
closing
Hydrogen: Closing the cost gap
“A solid analytical McKinsey build with strong quantified titles and a clean three-bucket MECE, but it buries its named framework and lets the recommendation drift into the appendix - use pp. 10-13 as a teaching example for analytical staircases, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide p. 19 reverts to a vague topic-style title and lacks a crisp recommendation or next-step CTA
60
closing
Deloitte 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world
“A well-architected research-trends deck with genuine MECE pillars and dense data, but it teaches as a framework lookbook rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its section structure as a model and its title writing as a counter-example.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels reused across 2-3 consecutive slides (e.g., 'Negotiating worker data' p.21-23, 'Activating the future of workplace' p.17-19) — readers can't skim the deck
60
closing
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding
60
closing
Presentation Half Year Results 260723 ENG FINAL VERSION
“A competent corporate earnings deck with disciplined callouts and several strong action titles, but its three-act structure is a reporting template rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for callout and action-title patterns on data slides, not as an exemplar of pillared storytelling.”
↓ Section dividers are categorical buckets, not strategic pillars — Financials/Business/Outlook is the default earnings template, not a MECE argument
60
closing
Goldman Sachs Sixteenth Annual ANZ Investment Forum Presentation
“A competent corporate IR/forum overview with clean section architecture but topic-label titles in the segments block, no complication, and an appendix that duplicates the main narrative — useful as an example of MECE structure and occasional declarative financial titles, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Operating-group section uses the segment name as the slide title 3-4 times each (slides 28-36 and again 63-66) — readers can't tell pages apart by title alone
60
closing
Q4 FY 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent investor-relations earnings deck with strong action titles and a clean lead-with-the-answer opening, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for the title-craft of slides 7-17 — not the structure, which lacks pillars, complication, and is overwhelmed by a 29-slide appendix.”
↓ 63% of the deck (29/46) is appendix — narrative drowns in reference material
58
closing
Banking on AI Banking Top 10 Trends for 2024
“Well-researched trend-report masquerading as a deck — strong figure titles and metrics make it a useful teaching example for evidence-driven slides, but the enumerative 10-trend structure and buried thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF / pyramid principle — the deck never leads with an answer; the exec summary is on p.45 of 48, not p.2
58
closing
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
55
closing
Risk management in transformation
“A competently structured analytical survey report with a visible three-act spine and a recommendation slide, but too many titles are topic labels or figure captions — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture and front-loaded takeaways, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Roughly a third of body slides use raw figure captions as titles ('Figure 10...', 'Figure 15...', 'Figure 24...', 'Figure 25...') — topic labels, not findings
55
closing
Reset Innovation Priorities
“A solid whitepaper-style how-to with a strong opening question and useful frameworks, but Storymakers-weak — figure-caption titles and a generic close make this a teaching example for analytical scaffolding, not narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are figure captions, not insights — every framework slide (p.4, p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.15) is titled 'Figure N: …'
55
closing
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
55
closing
Secure your future people experience Five imperatives for action
“A textbook MECE-pillar consulting deck with strong case-study evidence and a clean five-act body, but a buried opener and an essay-style close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Soft close: p.31-32 read like an essay coda rather than a recommendation slide; no prioritization, sequencing, or 'where to start' guidance
55
closing
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
55
closing
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
55
closing
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
55
closing
Aerospace supply chain: Resilience report 2024
“A disciplined survey-report deck with strong action titles and tight pacing, but the recommendation is under-built and the structure is a flat analytical run rather than a true Storymakers arc — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing or pillar design.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.13) with a generic 'adopt best-practices' message — no specific moves, owners, or sequencing
55
closing
Hydrogen applications and business models
“An exhaustive, well-titled reference FactBook with consultant-grade analytical rigor but a buried thesis and a missing resolution — use the business-case section (p.128-184) as a teaching example for evidence ladders, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or pyramid lead — the integrating answer ('heavy-duty transport is the most promising near-term H2 business model') sits on p.14-15 of a 192-page deck instead of p.3
55
closing
ey global ipo trends 2023 q4
“A competent quarterly market report with a sound geographic spine and several sharp action titles, but it reads as an analytical dump that buries a generic recommendation behind the appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast (insight titles vs «(Cont'd)» topic labels), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Eight slides titled with «(Cont'd)» variants (p.16–19, p.28–30, p.23) — these are topic labels, not action titles, and signal an analytical dump
55
closing
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward
52
closing
Rise of Agentic AI Report
“A well-structured research report with solid MECE pillar dividers and strong data titles, but weakened by 20+ quote/filler slides that reuse the report title as a headline and a 25-slide firm-marketing tail that buries the client imperative — use its section architecture (pp 16/22/46/60/68) as a teaching example, not its openings or its close.”
↓ Roughly 1-in-5 slides use 'Rise of agentic AI: How trust is the key to human-AI collaboration' as the headline (quote and transition pages), abdicating the action-title discipline and forcing the callout to carry the argument
52
closing
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
50
closing
2022 CEO Outlook
“A data-rich research report dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored callouts, but its topic-label titles, missing Complication, and weak close make it a poor Storymakers exemplar overall.”
↓ No Complication act: p.4 lists 'four themes' but never escalates to a single tension the deck must resolve, so the middle reads as parallel topic chapters
50
closing
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
50
closing
COVID-19 Business Recovery Vancouver
“A competent McKinsey scenario-and-learnings deck with disciplined three-pillar scaffolding and good quantified titles on data pages, but it buries its thesis at the open and dilutes its recommendation at the close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Opening is a slow burn — agenda on p.3 and a topic-label scenario chart on p.4 delay the thesis; no answer-first slide in the first 5 pages