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 22 / 31
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 global credit bureau forum v30
“Competent investor-day roadshow with strong slide-level quantified titles inside each segment, but no overarching narrative spine or closing synthesis — use the mid-section analytical build-ups (Ascend p.26, Verify p.29–30, Serasa p.50–60) as teaching examples of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck leads with agenda/CFO Q&A instead of an answer-first insight
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
20230316 scff portfolio details
“A portfolio-disclosure reference document masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and missing narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are 100% legal-entity labels rather than action titles — slides 3-12 all repeat variants of the fund name with no insight
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
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q4 2023
“A strong-opening BCG pulse report with declarative action titles worth teaching from, but it has no closing act and buries itself in a 7-slide table appendix — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as exemplars for 'answer-first' titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends at p18 and then devolves into a 7-slide appendix of comparison tables (p19-25) with no recommendation or call-to-action.
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
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
CEOs ready to face up to crises
“A competent Deloitte survey report with declarative section dividers but topic-label slide titles and no resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how pillar dividers and data-rich callouts can carry a deck despite weak within-section titles and a missing recommendation close.”
↓ Slide titles are topic dumps, not action titles — p.7, 8, 9 are all titled 'Strategy'; p.25-28 all titled 'Financing'; the reader cannot skim for the argument
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
28
closing
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
28
closing
IoT Big Data Value Creation
“An atmospheric thought-leadership deck that sets up a topic without ever delivering an answer — useful as a cautionary example of strong context with no Resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closes on 'challenges' (p.17) and a Clarke quote (p.18) instead of an answer
28
closing
US Credit Card Issuer Performance 1Q 2023
“A competent McKinsey quarterly data brief with a strong answer-first opening and well-titled analytical charts, but it diagnoses without prescribing and trails off into valuation tables — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles and exec-summary craft, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on P/B ratio tables (p.35-37) with zero recommendation, next steps, or implication for issuers
28
closing
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent GRI-aligned sustainability disclosure that is well-evidenced but narratively flat — useful as a teaching example of KPI density and ESG taxonomy, but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it has topic-label titles, no tension, and no recommendation close.”
↓ Action titles are largely absent — p.22 'Economic performance', p.67 'Trainings', p.84 'Pollutant emission' are nouns, not insights
28
closing
Global Pricing Study 2011
“A short research-summary teaser with strong headline-title discipline on its analytical slides but no recommendation and a self-promotional close — useful as an exemplar of insight titles, not of full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.9 with a firm-credentials slide ('No. 1 in marketing and sales in Germany')
28
closing
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
28
closing
Deloitte Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but conventional RFP-orals proposal — earns partial credit for an early thesis (p.4) and a quantified timeline title (p.6), but defaults to a methodology walk with topic-label phase titles, muddled Phase Three repetition, and a closing that fades into Q&A and 'About Deloitte'; useful as an example of RFP scaffolding, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing is essentially absent — p.16 'QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION' followed by p.17 'About Deloitte' with no recommendation, ask, or decision-required slide
28
closing
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with a strong hook and insight-bearing key-message slides, but it stops at analysis and never answers the 'so what' — useful as a teaching example for action titles and rhetorical setup, not for closing a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends p.27-30 in methodology, sources, and an About Ipsos boilerplate
28
closing
IPSOS HEALTH SERVICE REPORT 2024
“A competent global-survey data release with MECE pillars and strong headline numbers, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case — topic-label titles and a missing resolution act make it a reference for analytical structure, not narrative.”
↓ Action titles are essentially absent — pp.7, 20–22, 24, 30–40, 42–47 use the verbatim survey question as the title, forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
28
closing
WHAT THE FUTURE: WELLNESS
“An Ipsos editorial trends magazine masquerading as a deck — strong hook and a usable 'four tensions' framework, but the question-as-title habit and 15-slide quote appendix make it a counter-example for Storymakers, not an exemplar.”
↓ Question-titles dominate (p.6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) — the reader has to do the synthesis the deck should be doing