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
374 matching · page 4 / 16
60
closing
2023 HALF-YEAR RESULTS
“A competent half-year earnings deck with disciplined three-pillar structure and several genuinely insight-bearing action titles, but it lacks an upfront thesis and a memorable close — useful as a teaching example for action-title diagnosis (p.8–10), not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No upfront executive summary or thesis slide — the reader must reach p.3 to learn the headline and never gets a single-page synthesis
60
closing
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
60
closing
13.02.23 Annual Results Presentation
“A disciplined annual results readout with answer-first opening and clean MECE pillars, but soft on tension and ends on a taper — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of structure and answer-first openings, not of dramatic arc or insight-bearing titles in data sections.”
↓ Topic-label titles in the financial section (p4 'Revenue Breakdown by Region', p6 'Revenue Breakdown by Audience', p10 'Change in Operating Margin', p13 'Debt by Maturity') waste the most insight-rich pages
60
closing
Goldman Sachs Sixteenth Annual ANZ Investment Forum Presentation
“A competent corporate IR/forum overview with clean section architecture but topic-label titles in the segments block, no complication, and an appendix that duplicates the main narrative — useful as an example of MECE structure and occasional declarative financial titles, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Operating-group section uses the segment name as the slide title 3-4 times each (slides 28-36 and again 63-66) — readers can't tell pages apart by title alone
60
closing
ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en
“A tight, well-titled analytical comparison deck (EA vs US tariff impact) that exemplifies strong declarative action titles but lacks SCQA framing on the bookends — use its action-title discipline as the teaching example, not its overall narrative scaffolding.”
↓ No explicit thesis/executive-summary slide in the opening — the reader must assemble the argument from p.2 onward
60
closing
2021 q4 earnings results presentation
“A competently-staged maiden-earnings deck with strong title discipline on body slides, but structurally it is a performance report with a forecast appended, not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft on analytical pages, not as a model for act structure or closing punch.”
↓ No Complication/tension beat — Section 2 jumps from 'who we are' to 'we are delivering' with no 'what was at stake' slide
60
closing
2020 cib investor day
“A textbook investor-day deck with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts but no SCQA tension and no synthesis close — use slides 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 34, 35 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p18, p19, p20) reuse essentially the same action title about «continuity and completeness in coverage» — a tell that the argument was not decomposed MECE before titling
60
closing
11 20230302 SDD How we measure and drive success
“A competent investor-relations ESG talk deck with a coherent spine and one strong insight title on p4, but soft complication and closing acts make it a solid example of structural flow — not a Storymakers exemplar for narrative tension or memorable close.”
↓ No complication/tension slide early on — p2 establishes context but the deck skips straight to the framework on p3 without stating what problem this solves
58
closing
2024 Global Investor Survey
“A disciplined survey deck with exemplary action-title craft but a weak landing — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative architecture or closings.”
↓ No answer-first / executive summary slide — the key recommendations don't surface until p.11 of 16
58
closing
Everest Group CPG Services
“A competent analyst-report briefing with two strong declarative titles but a procedural opening, no complication act, and a recommendation that fades into five pages of appendix — use pp.5, 7, and 8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening act is procedural: pp.1-4 consume a quarter of the deck on cover, 'Introduction', 'Scope', and framework mechanics before any thesis is asserted
58
closing
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3
58
closing
ey global ipo trends q4 2019
“Competent regional market-update deck with a clear thesis up front and a strong rhetorical close, but undermined by lazy repeated topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide - use the quote-slide openers as a teaching example, not the analytical pages.”
↓ Workhorse analytical slides reuse identical topic-label titles ('Global IPO market insight' x3, 'Asia-Pacific IPO market insight' x3, 'Europe, Middle East, India and Africa IPO market insight' x3) - every one of those should carry the slide's specific insight
58
closing
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
58
closing
20250114 bayer handout jpm 2025
“A solid investor-relations handout with strong asset-level action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches headline discipline more than narrative architecture — use individual slides (p.7, p.10, p.13) as title-craft references, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the LoE transition (the actual investor tension) is acknowledged only in the closing title, never framed up front
58
closing
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
58
closing
barclays disruptive technologies conference bayer crop science handout 2024.06.11
“A solid investor-conference handout with strong quantified action titles and a clear opening hook, but it tails off into appendix without an explicit recommendation — use the title craft as an exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or 'ask' slide before the appendix — slide 16 is the de facto close and it is aspirational, not directive
58
closing
The J M Smucker Co 2023 Barclays Presentation
“This is an investor conference deck, not consulting work — it has clean quantify-impact slides and a disciplined refrain, but as a Storymakers exemplar it demonstrates what to avoid (topic-label titles, missing Complication act, appendix-heavy tail) more than what to emulate.”
↓ No Complication/Question act — the deck never names a risk, market headwind, or strategic tension, so the 'recommend' slides (p.8, p.22, p.24) read as assertions rather than answers to a problem.
55
closing
The ultimate healthcare experience: what people want
“A competently structured four-pillar research brief with a clean MECE scaffold but a weak opening hook and a toothless closing — useful as a teaching example of section architecture, not of action titles or calls-to-action.”
↓ Recommendation slide (p.19) uses a descriptive paragraph as its title instead of a directive action title — the single most important slide doesn't prescribe
55
closing
A tough year for European chemicals players has come to an end – We do expect a continuation of the challenges into 2024
“A solid analytical diagnosis deck with disciplined action titles, but it ends as a credentials pitch rather than a recommendation -- useful as a teaching example for title craft and diagnosis flow, not for Storymakers closing discipline.”
↓ No explicit recommendation/next-steps slide -- p.13-16 outline a framework but never land on 'do these 3 things by Q2'
55
closing
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
55
closing
Gen Z Attitudes Toward Higher Education
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong action titles and one good transition hinge, but flat structure and a soft landing make it a title-craft exemplar rather than a full Storymakers model.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — the 11 analytical slides read as a flat sequence rather than grouped chapters
55
closing
Winning on the Margins TeBIT 2023
“A competent BCG benchmark readout with declarative titles and a solid opening, but it buries its recommendation and ends on an observation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and S->C openings, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — p.14 ends on an observation, burying the call to action
55
closing
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
55
closing
TSS Index 2025 France
“A solid analytical BCG index deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the recommendation in one sparse slide and ends on a diagnostic rather than a close — use p.2-10 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Sector deep-dive titles (p.11 'Chemicals', p.12 'Transportation & Logistics', p.13 '2024 Performance Overview') are topic labels, not insights — loses the action-title thread built earlier