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
35 matching · page 2 / 2
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
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)
30
closing
Technology Mineral Criticality
“A solid analytical McKinsey deck with strong action titles and a clear opening problem-frame, but it loses the storyline halfway through and never delivers a closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for title quality and S-C-A framing, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on scenario analysis (p. 26) then 'Back-up' (p. 27)
30
closing
ey global economic outlook july 2023
“A polished, title-driven analytical brief with exemplary action titles and a clean thesis-first open - use it as a teaching example for title craft, but not for narrative arc, since it dissolves into a contributor bio instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation - the deck ends on a regional slide (p30 Africa) and a contributor bio (p32) instead of a 'what this means for you' slide
28
closing
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
28
closing
The Next Gen Index Millennials and Gen Z in the US
“A data-driven trend report with strong metric-anchored titles but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title hygiene, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — closes on a context slide (p.17) that restates a generic premise instead of resolving
28
closing
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
25
closing
Everest Group Trust and Safety Services PEAK Matrix Assessment 2025
“A reprint of a third-party analyst evaluation rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides titled 'Accenture profile (page X of 8)' (p.5-12) — pagination is not a title and erases the insight on each page
25
closing
ey mobility consumer index mci 2022 study
“A solid annual-research findings deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it is an analytical report rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends at p10 'Concerns' + p11 demographics with no recommendation, implication, or call to action
22
closing
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
22
closing
article thebeatjun2025
“A strong front-of-book market commentary that leads with the answer and writes real action titles, then degrades into an unstoryfied 30-page data appendix — use slides 1-15 as a teaching example of 'lead with the answer,' not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Pages 20-51 are a reference data dump with topic-label titles and no narrative thread — roughly half the deck does no storytelling work