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 5 / 31
62
closing
Digital Auto Report 2023
“A well-titled, MECE-structured analytical report with strong action titles in the data section, but it front-loads 16 slides of consumer evidence and compresses the strategic answer into a single recommendation slide — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar dividers, not for narrative arc.”
↓ p.5-20 is 16 consecutive analyze_data slides with no internal section divider — feels like a research dump preceding the strategic story
62
closing
Sovereign Debt Restructuring
“A competent policy-brief deck with one strong, repeated quantified insight, but it buries the thesis behind heavy front matter and topic-label timelines - useful as a teaching example for repeated-stat reinforcement and case-comparator structure, not for opening or MECE pillaring.”
↓ Front matter consumes 21% of the deck (pp.1-3 cover/disclaimer/TOC) before any insight lands
62
closing
From resilience to reinvention
“A competent, correctly-shaped CEO-survey deck with the right SCQA bones but topic-label titles and a soft close — useful as a structural template, not as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title writing.”
↓ Titles are mostly nouns ('Outlook', 'Sustainability', 'Impact of AI') instead of insight-bearing action titles
62
closing
Embracing the Loyalty Equation
“A well-researched Accenture POV with a strong central framework but a soft opening, repeated titles, and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of framework-anchored analysis, not of Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Duplicate generic action titles: 'The way forward' appears on both p.17 and p.21, signaling the recommendation section was not sharpened
62
closing
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
62
closing
2022 consumer community banking investor day
“A disciplined, well-anchored investor-day portfolio review with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft and section navigation, but not for end-to-end SCQA narrative because it lacks a Complication and a synthesis close.”
↓ No Complication act: 106 pages without a single slide framing a real threat, gap, or 'what we got wrong' — the macro/credit slide at p.54 ('rapidly changing macro environment') is the closest, but it is immediately neutralised rather than developed into tension.
60
closing
Level Up: Elevate Your Business With a Platform Strategy
“A competently-structured thought-leadership deck with strong data-backed titles in the middle but a soft open and a closing that trails into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 2.1 pp margin advantage (p.3 callout) should be slide 1's headline, not a sub-bullet behind a definition
60
closing
The age of AI: Banking’s new reality
“A textbook-MECE consulting report with disciplined pillar structure and good evidence, but action titles default to topic labels and the close fades — use the section architecture as a teaching example, not the title-writing or the landing.”
↓ Action titles often duplicate section names ('Lead with value' x3, 'Close the gap on responsible AI' x2) — the deck tells you the topic but not the insight
60
closing
How nine digital frontrunners can lead on AI in Europe
“A well-sectioned McKinsey research report with solid quantification and a real recommendations chapter, but the thesis is buried behind a long definitional setup and the argument dissolves into a 14-page bibliography -- use it to teach sizing and sector deep-dives, not as an exemplar of opening or close.”
↓ Thesis is buried: the real 'answer' slide (p.20 'The nine digital frontrunners could play a leading role in Europe') sits 19 pages in, behind a 10-slide 'What is AI' definitional wade.
60
closing
USPS Envisioning Americas Future Postal
“A textbook McKinsey diagnosis deck with a strong quantified middle but a buried thesis and a stakeholder-cautious close — use p.4-15 as a teaching example for analytical buildup, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried answer — the headline number ($238B loss, $15B residual gap) doesn't land until p.13-18, so the first third reads as analytical buildup rather than a thesis-led deck
60
closing
Going full circle
“A competent research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a coherent diagnostic spine, but the thin opening and single-slide resolution make it a good teaching example for title craft and tension-building, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Opening is methodology-heavy: p.3 'Sample size by country' belongs in an appendix, not slide 3 of a 15-page argument.
60
closing
Five global shifts megatrends
“A well-organized PwC point-of-view survey with disciplined parallel pillars but a buried thesis, recycled titles, and no call to action — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five identical 'Possible implications…' titles (p.6/10/14/18/22) — pure topic labels that waste the most-read line on every other slide
60
closing
The Lithium-Ion (EV) battery market and supply chain
“Strong analytical mid-section with quantified, declarative titles, but bookended by a thesis-less opening and a triple-takeaway close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — first 5 pages establish context but never preview the answer or stakes
60
closing
Medical Affairs Outlook Report
“A competent industry-outlook report with a recognizable arc and a few strong action titles, but it leads with topic instead of thesis and ends in platitude — useful as a 'callouts done right' example, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening (p.1–3) never states the thesis — the executive summary callout is a vague consensus statement, not the answer
60
closing
Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up
“A well-architected survey-report-as-deck with disciplined sectioning and a memorable Compliance Pioneer payoff, but action titles default to topic labels and the close substitutes metaphor for a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for repeating per-pillar 'Actions' beats, not for headline writing.”
↓ Action titles overwhelmingly topic labels (e.g. p.11 'Negative impacts of increased complexity', p.17 'A different way', p.34 'Culture of compliance') — the insights live in callouts, not headlines
60
closing
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding
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
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
keep moving forward
“A well-disciplined sales-marketing deck with strong MECE pillar architecture and quantified hooks, but title craft and the closing CTA are too soft to serve as a Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar structure as a teaching example, not the titles or the close.”
↓ Several titles are topic labels rather than insights — p.5 'Start here', p.9 'Today / Tomorrow', p.12 'Assessing your environment today' bury the so-what
60
closing
firm overview
“A polished investor-day overview with textbook action-title craft on the financial slides, but it ends in restatement rather than resolution — use p.6-14 as a teaching example of headline writing, not the deck's overall narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slide p.16 restates the thesis instead of resolving with a recommendation, watchlist, or commitment metrics — the deck ends on reassurance, not action
60
closing
2022 corporate investment bank investor day
“A polished investor-day deck with exemplary action-title discipline and number-anchored proof, but it pitches four parallel business cases rather than telling one SCQA story — use slides 3-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No real Complication — the deck never names a threat, gap, or risk that the strategy resolves; even 'rate headwinds' (p.12) and 'deposit margin compression' (p.29) are framed as already-overcome
60
closing
Q4 FY 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent investor-relations earnings deck with strong action titles and a clean lead-with-the-answer opening, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for the title-craft of slides 7-17 — not the structure, which lacks pillars, complication, and is overwhelmed by a 29-slide appendix.”
↓ 63% of the deck (29/46) is appendix — narrative drowns in reference material
60
closing
Q3 2024 Fixed Income Call presentation
“Competent IR update deck with a front-loaded thesis and clean main/appendix split, but it's a status report not a Storymakers arc — use the NII/rate-hedge block (p.8-10) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA tension — deck is an all-good status update with no complication to motivate the analysis