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 6 / 31
60
closing
20230530 A long way down Credit Suisse Rolf Sethe 11th EBI Academic Debate
“A chronologically compelling academic-debate narrative with a strong scandal-cascade spine and two genuinely original conclusions, but it buries its thesis behind seven 'Contents' dividers and repetitive price-delta titles — use the scandal-walk (pp.15-27) as a teaching example of dramatic sequencing, not the deck's structure.”
↓ Seven 'Contents' section dividers (pp.2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 28, 35) instead of named MECE pillars — the deck's structure is invisible to the reader
60
closing
2022 strategy update
“A financially rigorous investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but front-matter bloat, a single weak section divider, and a duplicated strategic narrative make it an exemplar of analytical discipline — not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Five-slide front matter (p.1-5) including a duplicated cover delays the thesis and wastes the reader's attention budget
58
closing
Banking on AI Banking Top 10 Trends for 2024
“Well-researched trend-report masquerading as a deck — strong figure titles and metrics make it a useful teaching example for evidence-driven slides, but the enumerative 10-trend structure and buried thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF / pyramid principle — the deck never leads with an answer; the exec summary is on p.45 of 48, not p.2
58
closing
Conquering the next value frontier in private equity
“A competent market-shaping POV with strong data slides and an early thesis, but the closing recommendations are fragmented and title discipline is uneven — useful as a teaching example for action-title-on-data-slide patterns, not as a whole-deck Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slides 4-8 re-establish context after slide 3 already delivered the headline, diluting momentum in the opening act
58
closing
Resiliency in the making
“Competent consulting thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and three-pillar structure, but weakened by redundant titling and a missing call-to-action — use the opening bookend (p.2-3) and case-study pairing pattern as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Resiliency in the making' is reused as a slide title on p.18 and p.26 — wastes two action-title slots on branding repetition
58
closing
Work, workforce, workers Reinvented in the age of generative AI
“A solid thought-leadership report with a genuine SCQA backbone and a MECE four-accelerator resolution, but it reads more like a polished briefing than a Storymakers exemplar - use its section architecture as a teaching case, not its action titles or its missing close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on an inspirational quote (p.42) then drops straight into appendices
58
closing
Digital consumer spending India
“A structurally disciplined market-sizing + sector-diagnosis deck with a strong thesis-forward opening and clean MECE pillars, but it buries its recommendation in a duplicated intervention slide and fades into case studies — use the sector-diagnosis spine (p11-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the closing act.”
↓ p24 and p25 share the exact same title 'Key interventions for driving growth in digital transactions' — the central recommendation slide is duplicated instead of sharpened
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
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
58
closing
2022 ANNUAL RESULTS
“Disciplined earnings/investor deck with a clean MECE three-pillar build and mostly strong action titles; useful as a teaching example for opening-with-the-answer and title discipline, but not a Storymakers SCQA exemplar - it has no real complication and ends in a thank-you, not a takeaway.”
↓ Several financial slides default to topic-label titles ('REVENUE BREAKDOWN BY REGION' p.4, 'CHANGE IN OPERATING MARGIN' p.10, 'DEBT BY MATURITY' p.13) instead of stating what the chart proves
58
closing
The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020
“A competently structured thought-leadership survey report with strong data presentation but a soft thesis and aspirational close - useful as a teaching example of chart-per-finding rhythm, not of SCQA narrative or prescriptive closings.”
↓ Generic repeated titles 'The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020' on p.5, p.19, and p.29 waste the most valuable real estate on the slide
58
closing
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor stability in an unstable world
“A solid thought-leadership research report with disciplined section structure but written as an essay, not a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of pillar organization and section-divider headlines, not of answer-first openings or actionable closes.”
↓ Five identical 'Concluding thoughts' titles (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) waste the highest-leverage slot in each section
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
Commercial payments, reinvented Your blueprint for accelerating payments revenue growth
“A data-rich Accenture market-landscape report with a workable S-C-A-R arc and a strong numeric hook up front, but the blueprint promised in the title gets only four slides and no explicit call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for evidence density and opening thesis, not for balanced act structure or recommendation craft.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 4 slides (p.33-36) after ~20 slides of diagnosis — imbalanced for a blueprint deck
55
closing
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
55
closing
Reimagining the Agenda
“A competently structured three-act survey readout whose analytical middle is a solid Storymakers teaching example, but whose missing thesis-up-front and collapsed recommendation act make it a cautionary tale for closings rather than a full exemplar.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: cover (p.1) and TOC (p.2) don't state the answer, so the reader waits until p.11 to see the recommendation framing
55
closing
Value untangled Accelerating radical growth through interoperability
“Solid research-report-as-deck with a strong opening hook and disciplined three-part recommendation, but it buries the call-to-action and lets title quality drift in the back half — use the opening (p.4-6) and the recommendation pillar (p.26-32) as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit CTA or 'next steps' slide — closes on a thesis restatement (p.37) then jumps to methodology
55
closing
Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference
“A tight 14-slide BCG press deck with strong declarative titles and a legible analytical arc, but it buries methodology up front and ends on a thesis restatement instead of a call to action: useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and paired contrast slides, not for closing structure.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide: the deck ends on a thesis restatement (p.13) followed by a brand cover, leaving the reader with a diagnosis but no prescription
55
closing
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 7th Edition
“A well-structured BCG/Altagamma research-insights deck with above-average action titles and a clean three-pillar body, but it buries its recommendation in a single closing slide — use it as a teaching example for pillar architecture and quantified titles, not for answer-first storytelling.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the deck takes until p.31 to surface recommendations, and even then the title ('several priority investments') is a hedge rather than a claim