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
635 matching · page 6 / 27
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
barclays ceo energy power conference 2018
“A competent investor-conference deck with pockets of strong Storymakers craft (action titles p.6/p.7/p.14, quantified callouts p.9-p.13) but no SCQA spine and a topic-label closing — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening delays the thesis: disclaimer (p.2) + tagline (p.3) + framework stub (p.4) + identity (p.5) burn four slides before any insight
60
closing
Essity Barclays Consumer Staples Conference 2017 tcm339 48081
“A standard investor-conference company overview with a predictable spine but topic-label titles and no narrative tension — use it to teach what to avoid (noun-phrase titles, buried thesis, redundant 'Summary' pages), not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no stakes or thesis — the point is buried until p.9-10
60
closing
fd4b1c5071718761657e3d9fd9dec1092cda8949
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong data-led brand titles in the middle act, but it skips the Complication, breaks its own 5-pillar promise, and bookends with one-word titles — useful as a teaching example for action-titled brand slides (pp.13-18, p.23), not for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication: nowhere in pp.4-11 is a problem, threat, or competitive tension named, so the strategic priorities (p.6) feel asserted rather than earned.
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
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
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
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
The disability inclusion imperative
“A well-evidenced thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and clean pillar rhythm, but it labels rather than argues in its titles and fizzles into inspiration instead of a concrete call to action — use the business-case section (p.10-17) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the whole deck.”
↓ Three separate slides (p.3, p.4, p.36) reuse the generic title 'The disability inclusion imperative' — title repetition signals topic labeling, not action titling
58
closing
World Economic Forum Digital Transformation Initiative: In collaboration with Accenture
“A competent WEF/Accenture summary deck with a strong answer-first opener and a clean four-pillar analytical spine, but let down by topic-label titles and a closing that names a destination instead of issuing a recommendation - useful as an example of pillar architecture and quantified callouts, not of Storymakers-grade action titles.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not claims - p.5 'Asset lifecycle management' and p.6 'Grid optimization and aggregation' force the reader to hunt for the insight in the callouts
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
Holiday Season Insights How did retail apparel promotions perform in 2019?
“A competent analyst-first POV piece with strong action titles and quantitative spine, but the recommendation is underbuilt and the closing slot is handed to a capabilities pitch - use pp.4-11 as a teaching example for answer-first thesis and declarative titles, not as a model for the resolution act.”
↓ Three near-duplicate context/cover slides (pp.1, 2, 3, plus p.14) inflate front/back matter and delay the payoff
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
Breakthrough Brigade Innovation Growth
“A solid thought-leadership report with a real MECE recommendations spine, but its brand-heavy opening, descriptive figure titles, and toothless 'Summary' close make it a useful teaching example for analytical pillar structure rather than for Storymakers-grade hook-and-payoff narrative.”
↓ Five front-matter slides (pp.1-5) including duplicate 'Our thought leadership' dividers delay the thesis to p.7
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
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
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
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
58
closing
Creating the best SME Debt finance ecosystem
“A structurally exemplary three-act consulting deck with strong diagnostic action titles, but it hedges its recommendations and wastes its executive summary headers — use Section 1 as the teaching example for action-titled diagnosis, not the closing as a recommendation template.”
↓ Executive summary slides 4-8 use pagination titles ('EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1/5…5/5') instead of carrying the five claims they contain — the most expensive real estate in the deck wasted
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
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
55
closing
Global Banking Consumer Study Reignite human connections to discover hidden value
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE discipline and a strong hook, but it opens with context and closes with recap — use Chapter 2's pivot-to-play nesting as a teaching example of MECE layering, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 7 pages of 'forces' before the reader is told what to do about them
55
closing
Innovate or Fade European businesses need to address the technology deficit to turn the tide
“A solidly structured three-pillar thought-leadership deck with a quantified hook and MECE prescriptions, but it buries its call to action in a one-line conclusion — use p.13/p.17/p.25 as a teaching example for numbered pillars, not as an example of how to close.”
↓ Closing is anemic: p.29 'Conclusion' with no numbered actions, deadlines, or owner — the deck dies before the appendix