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 4 / 31
68
closing
Women @ Work 2023: 7 The Gender Equality Leaders are benefiting from doing it right
“A well-organized thematic research report with unusually strong section dividers and insight-bearing body titles, but generic 'Executive summary' and 'Our recommendations' bookends blunt both the opener and the close — use the section dividers and body slides as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Executive summary' (pp.3-5) and three titled 'Our recommendations' (pp.35-37) — the most important bookend slides use topic labels instead of insights
68
closing
Digital Maturity Index Survey 2022
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with solid trend-level action titles and a clean archetype build, but it opens slowly, labels its archetype section as topics, and stops short of a synthesized recommendation — usable as a teaching example for quantified trend titles, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ Opening buries the headline: TOC at p.2, abstract exec summary at p.3, methodology deferred to p.8 — the 'EBIT uplift' thesis doesn't appear until p.4 and isn't quantified in a title anywhere
68
closing
Global Business Services Performance improvement
“A thought-leadership whitepaper in deck form — usable as a 'numbered-guide scaffolding' example but not a Storymakers exemplar because it skips the answer-first opening, uses imperative topic titles instead of insight titles, and breaks its own six-step MECE promise.”
↓ Action titles are imperatives ('Develop…', 'Focus on…', 'Extend…') rather than insight-bearing declaratives
68
closing
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
68
closing
Southeast Asia's Green Economy
“A disciplined, MECE-structured co-branded report with a clean S-C-A-R spine and unusually tight quantitative reconciliation — use its chapter skeleton and exec-summary sequencing as a teaching example, but not its opening (13 pages of forewords before the thesis) or its appendix-style country section.”
↓ Opening buried behind 13 pages of sponsor forewords (p.9-13) — the thesis on p.16 should be on p.1 or p.8
68
closing
plastic omnium presentation goldman sachs 15th annual industrials et autos week 2023 12 06
“Competent IR presentation with strong analytical titles but a classic corporate-chronology structure — useful as an example of numeric title discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening is a cover + divider + three context slides with no 'so what'
66
closing
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
65
closing
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
65
closing
Hyper-disruption demands constant reinvention
“A well-scaffolded analytical report with a legible S-C-R arc and mostly declarative titles, but it buries the ask in a sprawling sub-pillar-less recommendation act and ends with summary rather than CTA — use the opening framing and data-forward titling as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Seven slides use the 'A quick take on...' construction (p.9, p.11, p.24, p.26, p.30, p.32, p.33), a topic-label pattern that undercuts the otherwise declarative title standard
65
closing
Ready for take-off Why niche markets are the next big thing
“A competent thought-leadership white-paper-as-deck with a real S-C-A-R skeleton and strong evidence, but undermined by repeated topic-label CTAs and a missing concrete close — useful as a teaching example for evidence callouts, not for action-titling discipline.”
↓ Three identical 'What can today's business leaders do?' titles (p.16, p.20, p.26) — wasted real estate, no insight in the title
65
closing
IBV Smarter Workforce Institute
“A competent IBV thought-leadership deck with a real recommendation (FORT) at the end, but the repeated topic-label titles and bloated context section make it a teaching example for naming discipline, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ The same title 'Amplifying employee voice' is reused on p.1, 4, 6, 8, and 22 — wastes the most valuable real estate on the slide
65
closing
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
65
closing
Semiconductor shortage: A different kind of trouble ahead
“A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9 contact, p.10 about us) dilute the recommendation — no quantified next steps or memorable closing visual
65
closing
What if the US dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency?
“A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.”
↓ The cover question 'What if the US dollar loses its status...' is never answered in the first 3 slides - answer is withheld to p14, breaking 'lead with the answer'
65
closing
Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound
“A tight, well-opened McKinsey 'point of view' mini-deck with insight-bearing titles and a clear value-at-stake hook, but the closing recommendation is buried in a run-on title - use the opening and metric-per-slide discipline as a teaching example, not the close.”
↓ Closing slide (p.8) action title is a 36-word run-on, not a directive; weakens the call to action
65
closing
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
65
closing
Eyepoint Goldman Sachs June 10 2025
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong quantified action titles on the data slides but a weak complication and a duplicated section spine — use p.20-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (p.15 and p.22 both titled 'Phase 2 VERONA Clinical Trial in DME') signal a broken or copy-pasted spine, not MECE pillars
65
closing
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
65
closing
Q125 Results Presentation
“A disciplined bank earnings readout with strong group-level action titles but topic-label divisional openers and a thin narrative frame — useful as an exemplar of numeric headlines on group slides, not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Division-opener KPI dashboards (p.4, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24) are topic labels, not action titles — they waste the prime spot of each section
62
closing
Bridging the Skills Gap in the Future Workforce
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear problem→answer→ask spine, but it breaks its own 'three steps' MECE promise and hides insights behind generic chart labels — use p.7, p.20, and p.22 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Missing STEP TWO and STEP THREE dividers — the MECE promise made on p.16 is never kept, so pp.22 and 25 read as a stream rather than parallel pillars
62
closing
The Hidden Value of Culture Makers
“A well-crafted thought-leadership narrative with a strong opening and a memorable proprietary framework, but it trails off into case studies and a soft CTA instead of landing a prescriptive recommendation — use the opening and quantified-stakes sections as teaching examples, not the closing.”
↓ Conclusion slide (p.22) titled 'In conclusion' — textbook topic-label anti-pattern in a deck that otherwise uses action titles
62
closing
The art of AI maturity Advancing from practice to performance
“A disciplined Accenture thought-leadership deck with a genuine SCQA spine and a clean five-pillar recommend+case-study build — use the divider ladder and pillar pairing as a teaching example, but not the soft landing or the label-style analytical titles.”
↓ No explicit call-to-action slide; the deck trails off into author bios (p.32–33) and a six-page appendix (p.34–39), with the C-suite self-assessment (p.31) buried before them
62
closing
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
62
closing
Seeing the BIG Picture
“A structurally elegant thought-leadership report with a MECE cinematic spine and strong insight-bearing analytical titles — use the LIGHTS/CAMERA/ACTION build (pp.10–43) as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar design and declarative titling, but not as a model for opening, closing, or transition discipline.”
↓ Five filler transition slides (pp.7, 9, 25, 41, 45) plus a literal '55' placeholder (p.55) bleed momentum between every section