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 9 / 31
55
closing
karen ward isfw
“A competent house-view market outlook with strong declarative chart titles but a flat pillar structure and a marketing-style close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ 'Big themes' (p.2, p.11) is a topic label where the most important slides should carry the sharpest action titles
55
closing
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward
55
closing
Barclays Bank PLC H12023 Client Information
“A competent creditor/investor information fact-sheet with pockets of good action-title craft on capital and liquidity, but structurally it is a topic sequence without SCQA, pillars, or a stated thesis — useful as an example of quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — pages 1-3 are cover and entity-structure context with no stated question or 'so what'
55
closing
Barclays US Consumer Bank 2024 Barclays Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report
“A competent research-bulletin deck with strong stat-led callouts but a weak narrative spine — useful as an example of numerical action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of SCQA structure or persuasive close.”
↓ Slide 5 has a non-title ('2024 Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report | 5') — a running footer mistaken for an action title, wasting a data-table slide
55
closing
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2025
“A competent investor/creditor update with a clean answer-first 9-slide narrative and a heavy reference appendix; use p.2-9 as a teaching example of concise IR storytelling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — reader cannot see the pillar structure of the argument
55
closing
id19 growth in wealth management
“A competent investor-day update with strong quantified middle-section analytics but a stapled three-division structure, generic dividers and summaries, and no opening thesis or closing ask — useful as a teaching example of good action-title writing in the analytical core, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — slides 1–4 are cover, disclaimer, divider, and bullet highlights; the audience never gets a single-slide answer up front
52
closing
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“A solid BCG operating-model diagnostic with disciplined quantification and peer benchmarks, but it reads as a dense board-report archive rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its diagnosis→recommendation pairing within function sections as a teaching pattern, not its overall opening or closing.”
↓ The recommendation is buried: 22 pages of preamble (team bios on p.13, $5M BCG self-investment on p.8, project phases on p.6) precede the first substantive finding at p.23
52
closing
Automotive metal components for car bodies and chassis
“Competent Roland Berger market-study deck with clean MECE pillars and disciplined action titles in the analytical body - useful as a teaching example of trend-driven sizing, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it labels its executive summary, buries its punchline, and closes with firm marketing instead of a recommendation.”
↓ The most important number in the deck (EUR 15 bn hot-stamping by 2025) is buried in p.34's callout under a label title 'Implications and key takeaways' - should be the title
52
closing
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
50
closing
Value untangled Amplify speed to value through interoperability
“A solid Accenture research report with an intact SCQA spine and good quantified evidence, but it opens slowly, lets recommendation titles collapse to topic labels, and closes on a restatement rather than a call to action — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure and case-study placement, not for opening hooks or closes.”
↓ Opening burns five slides on context before the thesis lands at p9 — no answer-first hook
50
closing
2022 CEO Outlook
“A data-rich research report dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored callouts, but its topic-label titles, missing Complication, and weak close make it a poor Storymakers exemplar overall.”
↓ No Complication act: p.4 lists 'four themes' but never escalates to a single tension the deck must resolve, so the middle reads as parallel topic chapters
50
closing
Global Assignment Policies Practices
“A competent survey-report deck with strong evidentiary density and some good action titles, but structurally a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title rewriting, not for arc design.”
↓ Opening wastes 5 slides on cover/TOC/intro/methodology before any insight — the BLUF (bottom line up front) is absent
50
closing
L.E.K. ASC Insights Study MedTech Publication Deck
“Lead-gen publication deck with unusually strong action titles and a clean analytical middle, but a hollow recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ p.16 'framework_other' poses questions instead of answering them — the deck stops one slide short of a recommendation
50
closing
AI Healthcare Errors
“A well-evidenced analytical case-study tour with strong mid-deck action titles, but it lacks the SCQA opener and synthesis closer needed to work as a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 9, 15 and 16 for teaching declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the title promises 'preventing healthcare errors' but no slide in pp.1–8 sizes the error problem or names the Question
50
closing
Future Energy Landscape Netherlands
“A data-rich McKinsey market-outlook deck with strong quantified titles in the Netherlands section but a missing thesis up front, duplicate section dividers, and a non-committal close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and cost-curve evidence stacking, not for full SCQA structure.”
↓ Two section dividers (p.23 and p.28) carry identical text and neither names the trend it introduces — pillars are invisible to the reader
50
closing
Crossing the lines Fintech
“A competent analytical-comparison deck with strong data callouts but a label-heavy opening, a flabby triple 'Steps to take' middle, and a soft 'Conclusion' close — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Three identical 'Steps to take' titles (p.16, p.19, p.21) — no differentiation, no numbering, no recommendation specificity; reader cannot tell the pillars apart
50
closing
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
50
closing
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
50
closing
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“Textbook BCG analytical-build deck — MECE pillars, disciplined benchmarking and a hammered $70M number — but it buries the answer for 26 slides and fizzles into a victory-lap close, so use the chapter structure and exec-summary cadence as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried thesis: 26 slides before the $70M number lands — opening sells the mandate, not the answer
50
closing
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025: Hong Kong summary
“Solid analytical mid-deck with good action titles in the segment dives, but a weak thesis-free opening and a tangential Gen AI tail leave it as a useful teaching example for MECE segment build-up — not for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No SCQA hook in opening — p.4-5 establish scope without naming the central question or answer
50
closing
Blurred lines: How FinTech is shaping Financial Services
“A competent, stake-led PwC industry report with a clean numbered spine and several memorable action titles, but the recommendation collapses into a single 'Conclusion' slide after a heavy analytical middle — useful as a teaching example for stake-setting and 'So what?' synthesis, not for landing the ask.”
↓ Resolution act is just two slides (p.29 recommendation + p.30 'Conclusion') after ~22 pages of analysis — the recommendation is buried, not headlined.
50
closing
A pivot for Germany
“A competent survey-results readout with strong title hygiene but no narrative arc — useful as an exemplar of action-titled findings slides, not as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'Germany is optimistic' to recommendations without surfacing the threat the pivot answers
50
closing
The Future of Food Challenges & opportunities
“Competent data-rich industry report with a clear three-theme framing but weak Storymakers craft — use its metric-anchored analytical slides (p.13, p.26, p.28) as teaching examples, not its overall arc or titling discipline.”
↓ No answer-first opening: thesis is diluted across p.4-8 and never crystallized into a single provocation or recommendation slide up front
50
closing
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible