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 21 / 27
30
closing
Charging Ahead Australia’s battery powered future
“This is an Accenture capabilities/credentials deck dressed as a research report — structurally tidy but narratively flat, with a context-heavy open and a case-study close; useful as an example of section-divider hygiene and MECE frameworks, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is pure decarbonization context, never states the answer (pp.1-5)
30
closing
Ipsos SEA Ahead Shift + Sentiments 20211209
“A solid analytical research read-out with strong quantified action titles in its first pillar, but it functions as three stitched-together topic briefs rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as an example of action-title writing in the macro section, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis: p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' is a divider with no follow-through, then jumps straight to Q&A on p.34
30
closing
What The Future Intelligence
“A thought-leadership magazine with strong action titles and a crisp thesis, but it diagnoses endlessly and never prescribes — useful as a teaching example of declarative slide titles and data-driven build-up, not as a model for Storymakers arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck has no 'so what / now what' slide; last substantive page (p41 'Future optimism gaps') diagnoses rather than recommends
30
closing
CCPC Investments Research Sept. 2021
“A competent market-research findings deck with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide headlines, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' close: the deck ends on p.13 with another finding and then 'CONTACTS' (p.14), so the reader leaves without a call to action.
30
closing
Banking and capital markets trends 2020: Laying the foundations for growth
“A reference catalog masquerading as a deck — useful as a topic checklist for an internal audit team but a poor Storymakers exemplar; cite it only as a counter-example of how topic-labels and pagination suffixes erase narrative.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 88 slides and not one declarative finding in the title bar
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
30
closing
IMD Morgan Stanley Final 13 June 2019
“Competent regional-bank investor deck with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it never states a Complication and ends in disclaimers — useful as an exemplar of pillar architecture and peer-benchmark evidence, not as a full SCQA narrative or strong close.”
↓ No Complication: deck shows strengths without naming a tension or risk, so there is nothing for the recommendation to resolve
30
closing
ey mobility consumer index 2023
“A well-structured analytical research report with strong action titles and creative pillar labels, but no thesis at the front and no recommendation at the back — useful as a teaching example for title craft and section-divider voice, not for SCQA narrative arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–3 establish the study but never pose a question or stake; reader doesn't know what they're being argued toward
30
closing
ey norwegian crypto adoption survey v2
“A competent survey-findings readout with strong action titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative slide titles, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.13 then dumps into appendix/disclaimer (pp.14–16)
30
closing
ey people leaders forum 2025 presentations day1
“A disciplined, MECE-structured keynote with strong metric-bearing analytical titles, but it opens slowly and ends in a dinner invitation rather than a recommendation — use the three-pillar architecture and p.20-p.22 titles as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — closing flow p.28→p.29→p.30 dissolves into 'Seated dinner and networking'
30
closing
wipoapiday2023 o neill
“A competent Gartner-style trends briefing with quantified data and a recognizable framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is an analytical dump that lacks thesis, recommendation, and close — useful for teaching action-title rewrites, not narrative architecture.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck never tells the audience what to do with the trend data (no 'recommendation' or 'next_steps' slide type appears).
30
closing
mi gtia
“A well-organized JPMorgan reference guide with parallel country structure and solid data, but a textbook example of an analytical-dump deck with topic-label titles and no SCQA arc — useful as a counter-example for Storymakers training, not as an exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck never tells the audience what to believe or do about Asia
30
closing
mi gtm latam br en
“A reference-grade market almanac with strong data hygiene but no narrative — useful as a teaching example of MECE regional coverage and callout discipline, not of Storymakers structure or action-titling.”
↓ Zero action titles — every page title is a topic label ('Latin America: Politics' p.6, 'U.S.: The Fed and interest rates' p.34) leaving the audience to extract the insight themselves
30
closing
Barclays Bank PLC FY24 Client Information
“A credit-investor fact pack with solid evidence and a few strong action titles, but no narrative spine — useful as a reference artefact, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck has a Situation (p.2) but no Complication, Question, or Answer; it is a reference document, not a narrative
30
closing
Barclays H12023 Results Presentation
“Competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and disciplined main-body action titles, but it has no real story arc, a dead 'Outlook' close, and a topic-labelled appendix — use pp3-24 as a teaching example of metric-anchored action titles, not as a Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Dead close: p25 'Outlook' is a bare topic label with no recommendation, no ask, no memorable line — the deck whimpers into the appendix
28
closing
A&M Valuation Insights March 2024
“A data-rich thought-leadership update with genuinely strong action titles, but structurally not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p2-p9 as a teaching example for declarative titling, not as a model for deck architecture.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide — the deck never tells the reader what the overall point is before diving into data
28
closing
The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight (7th Edition)
“A competent BCG industry-insights report with strong data-bearing action titles, but narratively it is an analytical dump without an SCQA resolution — use pp.9, 11, 14, 18 as teaching examples for action-title quality, not the overall structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide: thesis only hinted at on p.6 after 5 front-matter/context pages
28
closing
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2
“A dense, methodologically rigorous reference pack of ~13 defense-efficiency initiatives with strong per-initiative build-up but no global narrative spine — use the inner initiative templates (e.g., car-pool pp.193–228 or category-management pp.54–82) as teaching examples of structured analytical build, not the overall deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary or total-potential slide anywhere in the first 8 pages — the deck has no global answer-first opening, just TOCs (p.2–8) before jumping into Initiative 1 on p.9.
28
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Indonesia
“A competent single-chapter country brief with strong action titles and clean one-message slides, but it is analytical reporting rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative structure or closing.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends on p.7 with a negative funding stat and no recommendation, implication, or 'where to play' call to action
28
closing
An Introduction to Our Group Oct 2025
“A polished corporate capabilities brochure, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a cautionary example of how pillar dividers and proud proof points cannot substitute for a thesis, complication, and recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA: the deck never names a business complication a reader should care about — it only asserts capability
28
closing
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A competent Deloitte Insights trends report with solid per-section rhythm and data discipline, but structurally a topic anthology that opens slowly, closes flat, and lets six 'just the number' placeholder titles slip through — use the intra-section frame→data→case→recommend pattern as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ Six slides carry titles that are just the trend number ('03' on pp.11, 29, 31, 33; '04' on pp.39, 42) — the single biggest Storymakers violation in the deck.
28
closing
Doing business in the Philippines 2021
“A well-researched Philippines investment-reference document dressed as a consulting deck — strong on data density and section navigation, but topic-ordered rather than argument-ordered, so use it as an example of what to avoid when teaching Storymakers action titles and closing acts.”
↓ No answer-first framing — the document never states a recommendation or decision it is trying to drive; the closest thing is the preface platitude on p.3
28
closing
Navigating Disruption Financial Services
“A well-researched case-study compendium with disciplined 'from X to Y' action titles, but it opens with methodology and closes without a recommendation — use the case-study slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No synthesis slide — after 8 cases (p.9-16) there is no cross-case pattern, scorecard, or 'what this means for incumbents'
28
closing
Our Impact Plan 2024
“A solid ESG disclosure document with strong quantification and case-study discipline, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a topic-taxonomy dump that buries insights behind noun titles and ends in an appendix — use the case-study craft and quantified callouts as teaching examples, not the structure or titling.”
↓ No closing act — last analytical content is Materiality methodology (pp.83–86), then 19 pages of appendix; deck ends on 'Contacts' (p.106) with no recommendation or call to commitment