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
137 matching · page 3 / 6
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
Global tech report 2022
“A competent thematic survey report with strong individual data slides but a weak Storymakers spine — useful as an example of section-divider rhythm and quote/case-study texture, not as a model for answer-first narrative architecture.”
↓ No answer-first opener: p.4 'The headline numbers' is a label and the thesis never appears in the first 5 slides
55
closing
2019 Global Treasury Benchmarking
“A competent benchmarking survey with above-average thesis-style dividers and number-led headlines, but it reads as six parallel mini-essays rather than one Storymakers arc — use the pillar dividers and recommendation slides as teaching examples, not the overall structure or close.”
↓ Two back-to-back 'Theme overviews' dividers (p.4 and p.5) waste opening real estate and signal a topic dump rather than a story.
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
The generative AI advantage in financial services
“A serviceable thought-leadership PDF with one strong action title and disciplined callouts, but structurally a topic-dump that buries its thesis and ends in a vendor pitch — useful as a teaching example of weak openings and noun-titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening is dead weight — p.1 cover + p.2 generic 'Introduction' burn two of the deck's ten pages without establishing stakes or thesis
55
closing
The time for climate action is now
“A solid BCG thought-leadership piece with strong numerate action titles and a real S→C→R backbone, but the flat 7-action list and soft, appendix-tailed close make it a better teaching example for title quality than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Front matter bloat: p.1-3 all live in setup/context mode before the problem lands on p.5, burying the lede
55
closing
Introduction to Ipsos May 2024
“A competent corporate capabilities deck with good action titles and a quantified spine, but it's a company tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for title craft, not as an exemplar of SCQA structure or a strong close.”
↓ Duplicate titles on p.10 and p.11 («OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA» / «...THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA») — an editing miss that fractures the strategy section
55
closing
IAB State of Data 2023
“A solid analytical industry report with strong title discipline on the diagnostic middle, but the recommendation is buried mid-deck and the close trails off into sponsor matter — use pp. 11-25 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation arc is buried — the recap fires on p. 26 but the deck continues for 21 more slides of frameworks, appendix, and sponsor content
52
closing
Building Sustainable Organizations
“A competent thought-leadership report with an early thesis and clear three-pillar spine, but the case-study run and closing undersell the recommendation — use the opening (pp.2-5) and problem-framing (p.11) as Storymakers exemplars, not the back half.”
↓ Case-study titles on pp.21-24 are company names, not extracted lessons — no insight portability
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
Breaking Records Everything Brands needs to know to breakthrough and dominate the Chinese Market in 2024
“A boutique-agency pitch wearing a McKinsey label — has pillar scaffolding and a clever verbal bookend, but topic-labeled titles and a buried recommendation make it a useful teaching example of where a deck loses its Storymakers spine, not an exemplar to imitate.”
↓ Thesis is buried — first 5 slides establish context (¥13tn, $3.565tn, value-share chart) but never state what the audience should do; opening fails the 'lead with the answer' test
50
closing
Evaluating NYC media sector
“A competent sector-scan deliverable with strong slide-level action titles but weak narrative architecture — use the analytical slides (p.6-25) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ 10 redundant 'Agenda' slides (p.5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 31, 37) — roughly 24% of the deck is navigation chrome
48
closing
Fintech
“A competent analytical Deloitte industry report with strong action titles on the diagnostic slides but a missing 'Answer' act — use pages 9-11 as a teaching example of tension-carrying titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the cover tagline 'On the brink of further disruption' is never restated as a crisp SCQA answer
48
closing
Trends & AI in the Contact Center
“A competent survey-plus-capabilities deck with strong data callouts but a weak story spine — use its quantified pull-quotes as a teaching example, not its structure or titles.”
↓ Six near-identical section dividers (pp.2,4,6,8,10,12) eat ~20% of the deck without differentiating pillars — dividers should be MECE, not refrains
45
closing
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition
“A solid analytical report with strong middle-act action titles, but it ends on a framework instead of a recommendation and hides its thesis behind scene-setting — use its analytical slides (p.8, p.22-25) as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ Resolution act is a framework, not a recommendation — p.32-33 tell brands to 'decide which role to play' without naming which roles or priorities
45
closing
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
45
closing
Secret of Transformations
“A solid McKinsey teaching/keynote deck with strong quantified evidence and a recognizable arc, but the interrogative titles, mid-deck survey detour, and missing recommendation make it a useful exemplar for analytical build-up — not for Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Survey for the audience' slides (p.8-13) interrupt the narrative and look like a workshop artifact, not a deck
45
closing
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing
45
closing
2019 Fueling Energy Future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong problem framing and declarative titles, but the recommendation is smeared across too many framework slides and the close is a marketing link — use p.3 and p.15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is diluted across seven consecutive framework slides (p.10-17 all variations of 'wise pivot') with no single climactic 'here is the answer' moment
45
closing
Wealth and asset management 4.0
“A research-rich, well-evidenced industry report with strong action titles in the middle acts, but it buries its thesis under an 'Introduction' label and fails to land a specific recommendation across four identically-titled 'Calls to action' slides — use the mid-deck analytical titling as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ The opening buries the thesis — p.2 is titled 'Introduction' (a topic label), and the actual product-to-customer-centric argument only surfaces in the callout, not the title
45
closing
ey global ipo trends 2023 q2 v1
“A competently structured EY educational primer with a 5W1H spine and a service pitch tail — useful as a teaching example of MECE topic coverage, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with questions instead of answers and closes on credentials instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are nouns or questions throughout (pp.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) — the deck never tells you the answer in the title bar
45
closing
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
45
closing
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution
42
closing
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing