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 27 / 31
25
closing
Nielsen 2022 Audio Today How America Listens Jun22 FINAL
“A data-driven advocacy deck for radio that opens with a strong hook and insight-bearing titles but has no complication, no recommendation, and ends in an appendix — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never poses a tension for advertisers nor recommends an action
25
closing
Tenth Annual Leveraged Finance and Credit Conference
“A competent investor-relations deck with a workable resilience narrative but a buried answer, a broken appendix boundary, and a logo-only close — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence chaining (p.7-9) but weak as a Storymakers exemplar of arc, dividers, and closing.”
↓ Closing slide (p.26) is just the company logo — no CTA, no summary, no ask
25
closing
mi daily gtm us
“This is JPMorgan's quarterly Guide to the Markets reference chartbook, not a persuasive consulting deck — it is best-in-class as a data atlas but a poor Storymakers exemplar; mine individual callouts (pp.16, 29, 41, 65) as examples of insight-bearing pull-quotes, but do not use the deck's structure as a narrative model.”
↓ Zero answer-first opening: pp.1-5 give no thesis or stakes, just cover/team/TOC and two unframed S&P charts
25
closing
business leaders outlook pulse 2023 ada
“A competently-written survey-results deck with strong callout writing but no narrative arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles—use it as a counter-example of how a thoughtful exec summary can be wasted by a structureless body and a missing close.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or call-to-action anywhere in the deck—it ends on 'External threats' (p.8) then methodology
25
closing
Keynote address
“Solid analytical briefing with above-average action titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — useful as an exemplar of evidence-anchored analytical slides, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation — slide 21 is just 'THANK YOU!', wasting the highest-recall slot in the deck
25
closing
jpmc esg report 2021
“A polished ESG disclosure report, not a story-driven deck — useful as a reference for quantified callouts and pillar dividers, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with topics, never states a thesis, and ends in appendix.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — most slides in the first 25 use topic-label headlines with no verb or claim (p.5, p.6, p.7, p.14, p.20, p.21, etc.)
25
closing
Barclays H1 2023 Review of Shareholder Activism 002 1
“A data-rich but structurally flat market review — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts and geographic MECE, but a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation gut the Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends at p.15 and transitions straight to contacts + appendix.
25
closing
230911 mexico ir presentation
“A competent IR briefing with decent action titles and MECE scaffolding but no narrative tension and no close — use pp. 4–6 and 8–9 as examples of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA or answer-first opener — the first substantive slide (p.4) asserts generic 'opportunities' rather than stating the investment thesis
22
closing
Introduction to A&M Services in Asia
“A standard firm-capabilities brochure organized by practice area — useful as an anti-example of 'no SCQA, no close' and of topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck never poses a client Question, so there is no Answer to build toward; it is an undifferentiated service catalog
22
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Philippines
“A competent country-profile excerpt from a regional atlas with good action-title discipline on the data slides, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 3, 4 and 6 as teaching cases for quantified action titles, and use the whole chapter as a counter-example of an analytical tour that never commits to an SCQA arc or recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA or recommendation anywhere — the chapter is pure atlas, with p.2 'Country overview' as a topic label rather than a question or complication
22
closing
Global Fashion & Luxury Private Equity and Investors Survey 2021
“A credibility-heavy Deloitte research report with strong evidence density and a front-loaded takeaways block, but structurally an analytical dump: topic-label titles, no resolution, and a close that reverts to respondent demographics — useful as a teaching example of 'how to carry a metric in every callout', not of Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Closing sequence p.52–56 is respondent profile, not recommendation — the deck ends on 'who answered the survey' rather than 'what investors should do'
22
closing
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A competent industry research report with a logical value-chain spine and pockets of real insight titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close, and too many topic-label titles — useful as a case study in how to rewrite breadcrumb titles into action titles, not as a model of narrative structure.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide — the reader must read 16+ pages before any synthesis, and none ever arrives
22
closing
European Banking Barometer 2015
“A competently written industry barometer with strong per-slide action titles and a tight three-message exec summary, but it buries no recommendation and ends on 'Contacts' — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles and connector-title chaining, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or implications slide — the deck ends on p44 data and then 'Contacts'/'Appendix', with zero call-to-action
22
closing
GenAI wealth asset management
“A competent survey-highlights report with strong per-slide action titles and a coherent analytical middle, but it's not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.7–19 to teach stat-led action titles, not the overall structure, which lacks a complication, named pillars, and a closing recommendation.”
↓ Five separate 'Contents' slides (p.2, p.4, p.6, p.20, p.23) with no pillar labels act as filler dividers rather than MECE signposts
22
closing
Venture Pulse Q3 2024
“A reference-grade quarterly intelligence report with unusually disciplined action titles and MECE geographic structure, but no SCQA arc and no close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and parallel section design, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — the deck ends at p.91 with regional data and rolls straight into 'About us' (pp.92–94) and disclaimers (pp.95–96)
22
closing
Asia-Pacific 2022 Hospital Priorities Survey: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent analytical survey readout with disciplined numeric action titles and a strong mid-deck pivot, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers' its title promises — use pp.3-10 as a teaching example of front-loaded findings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the subtitle — deck ends on p.21 data then contact/disclaimer
22
closing
A global view of how consumer behavior is changing amid COVID-19
“A well-titled McKinsey research briefing with a clean setup and a framework promise on p.4, but it is an S-C-A deck with the R amputated — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.18 heatmap + p.19 disclaimer with zero recommendations, implications, or next steps
22
closing
Global Economics Intelligence June 2023
“A disciplined regional macro digest with strong MECE pillars and number-bearing titles, but it is a descriptive intelligence product rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and pillar structure, not for story arc or close.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck terminates on Brazil data (p27) and logo (p28), with zero call to action or implications
22
closing
Technology Trends Outlook 2022
“A high-quality 14-trend research compendium with a strong data-led opening but no closing synthesis or recommendation — use the per-trend micro-template and the p.3/p.5 opening as teaching examples, not the overall deck structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — the deck terminates on the last trend's appendix (pp.180-184) with zero cross-trend wrap-up or recommendation
22
closing
IAB Podcast Ad Revenue
“A credible industry data study with a strong SCQA opening and two exemplary action titles, but it degrades into topic-labeled data tables and ends in administrative back matter - useful as a teaching example for the p.4-7 setup, not as a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No synthesis or implications slide between p.10 (last data) and p.11 (Contacts) - the 'so what' for advertisers, publishers, or platforms is never stated
22
closing
GEM Outlook 2021-2025 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC market-outlook research deck with disciplined action titles but no recommendation arc - useful as a Storymakers exemplar for slide-level title craft and benchmark framing, not for opening hook, Act-3 payoff, or closing call-to-action.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide: deck ends p.31 -> appendix -> 'Thank you.' (p.34) with zero implications for an HK operator or advertiser
22
closing
Global Workforce Hopes Fears 2022
“A well-titled survey report dressed as a deck — use slides 4, 6, and 10-12 as examples of insight-bearing action titles, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.20 to appendix is an abrupt drop-off with zero implications for employers
22
closing
Namibia National Budget 2024-25
“Topic-labeled government budget walkthrough with no SCQA arc and a non-existent close — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and answer-first structure fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title-as-topic on every slide — there is not a single declarative action title in 25 pages
22
closing
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA