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 9 / 16
38
closing
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
38
closing
Project Management: Improving performance, reducing risk
“A competently-structured awareness deck for a board audience that uses question-based section dividers well but reads as a topic walkthrough rather than an argument — useful as a teaching example of how clear section spines do not by themselves produce a Storymakers narrative when action titles and a synthesized close are missing.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the thesis is delayed until p.10 and never restated as a single declarative claim
38
closing
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
38
closing
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Methodology Report
“A credentialed methodology report with a clean two-pillar structure and strong quantitative spine, but it buries the answer and ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for sound MECE pillars, not for narrative arc or opening/closing craft.”
↓ No thesis up front: pages 1-7 are entirely scene-setting; the headline number a reader should remember is never stated in the opening
38
closing
Warehouse Automation
“A competent banker/consultant thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and a clean sizing spine, but it is an analytical build-up that buries the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and market sizing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.17-20 in credentials, team bio, and disclaimers — there is no recommendation, decision frame, or 'what to do next' slide
38
closing
PwC's 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey
“A well-signposted research-survey deck with strong action titles in its analytical core but a missing resolution act — use pillars 1–3 as a teaching example for MECE structure and action-title discipline, not the closing.”
↓ ~10 slides reuse the report name '22nd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the slide title (p.9, 11, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 37, 42), abdicating the action-title discipline
38
closing
Accenture Post and Parcel Industry Research 2019
“A solid industry thought-leadership report with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts, but weak Storymakers exemplar overall — use sections 1–2 as a model for action titles and MECE build, not as a template for opening and close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 3–5 pages — reader must reach p.21 '5 SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES DETERMINE HIGH PERFORMANCE' to find the organizing answer
38
closing
rmb morgan stanley conference quilter september 2019
“Competent investor-conference update with a clean three-pillar spine but missing the Complication and a real close — useful as an example of pillar structure and callout discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the problem the strategy is solving, so 'Business initiatives' (p10-14) feel like activities rather than answers
38
closing
2020 ccb investor day
“A disciplined investor-day performance review with strong action-title and metric hygiene but no narrative tension and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of quantified action titles and MECE business-unit structure, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never acknowledges secular headwinds, fintech threats, or rate environment as tension to resolve — it reads as monologue, not argument
38
closing
guide to the markets au
“An exemplary reference data-book and a poor Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach taxonomic MECE structure and chart cadence, but use it as a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, section dividers, and closing recommendation.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 81/81 slides use topic labels ('Inflation', 'Gold', 'Volatility') so the deck cannot be read by titles alone, violating the core Storymakers test
38
closing
2019 am investor day ba56d0e8
“A competent investor-day strategy showcase with a clear three-pillar spine and quantified proof, but it skips the Complication and fumbles the close — useful as an exemplar of pillar tagging and metric-led titles, not of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never names a problem, threat, or 'why now', so it is proof without provocation
38
closing
Deutsche Bank Q3 2024 Presentation
“A competent IR earnings deck with strong executive-summary title discipline but a reporting (not story) spine — use slides 2-6 and the segment block (p16-p20) as teaching examples for action-title openers and MECE decomposition, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Analytical slides default to topic-label titles (p8 'Key performance indicators', p10 'NII/NIM', p31 'NII sensitivity') instead of stating what the data shows
38
closing
Deutsche Bank Q4 2023 Fixed Income Call
“Investor earnings disclosure — not a consulting deck — with strong action-title discipline in the main section but no SCQA arc and a collapsed close; use p.2-15 titles as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc — there is no Complication slide framing rate risk, CRE exposure, or cost pressure as the tension the deck resolves
35
closing
Out @ Work Barometer
“A competently titled survey readout with strong individual insight slides (especially the p.11 paradox) but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends at p.13 on a diagnosis ('missing out on talent')
35
closing
2021 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey Report
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with strong quantified callouts but interrogative topic titles and a contact-us ending — useful as a teaching example of insight-rich captions trapped inside a question-driven structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are questions, not answers — p.8, p.9, p.10, p.11, p.12, p.14, p.15, p.17, p.18, p.20, p.21, p.22, p.23 all use the 'What/How...?' pattern, forcing the reader to hunt the callout
35
closing
EY Academic Resource Center – mission
“A curriculum catalog masquerading as a deck — the Helix worked example and Tufte build are useful teaching artifacts, but the overall structure is a topic dump with no thesis, repeated titles, and a diluted close, so it is a counter-example of Storymakers discipline rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides titled 'Analytics mindset competency framework' or 'Master case study guide' with no differentiating action titles — the reader cannot navigate by page header
35
closing
Reinforcing the New South Wales Southern Shared Network (HumeLink) PADR – EY Market Modelling
“A technically rigorous market-modelling report in deck clothing — useful as a counter-example of how burying the answer and using topic titles instead of action titles weakens even strong analysis; do not use as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide anywhere — the 'preferred option' (Option 3C) is never stated as a headline, only implied through a highlighted table row on p.11
35
closing
2022 Manufacturing Survey
“A competent survey-results executive summary with a clear thesis on p.4 but topic-label titles and a data-dump close — useful as a teaching example of how analytical credibility alone doesn't make a Storymakers deck.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9-10) are a 2-of-2 data appendix, not a recommendation — no 'where to play / how to win' synthesis
35
closing
Dissecting 2021-22 Budget Speech
“Comprehensive but headline-free budget recap — useful as a teaching example of how topic-titled, sparse-callout decks fail the Storymakers test, not as an exemplar of narrative or action-title craft.”
↓ Titles are uniformly topic labels — '2021/22 Annual Budget Speech: <X>' — leaving the reader to derive the insight (p.4-20)
35
closing
GEM Outlook 2023-2027 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC outlook report with above-average action-title craft in the segment sections, but it reads as an analytical inventory rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides 9, 13, 17, 20 as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 02 → 04 (no section 03), signalling either lost content or a sloppy bolt-on of the GenAI module
35
closing
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
35
closing
Sustainability Study 2019
“Solid analytical mini-study with strong numerate action titles, but it is a research-findings deck dressed as a pitch — use pp.6–11 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc, which buries the recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/so-what slide — deck ends on firm credentials (p.13) and 'Thank you!' (p.14), throwing away the analytical build-up
35
closing
Insurance Trends and Growth Opportunities for Poland (2015)
“Solid analytical setup and several insight-bearing titles, but the deck is a trend tour that never resolves into a recommendation - useful as a teaching example for S->C framing on p.3-4, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution: 'Topics for the debate' (p.24) abdicates the recommendation a consulting deck owes its audience
35
closing
2023 EU Wide EBA Stress Test Our First Glance at Results
“A competent analyst briefing with a strong BLUF opening and one memorable thesis ('P2G drives winners and losers'), but it buries action titles in callouts and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example for opening slides and benchmarking, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides (p.6–12) reuse '1. EBA Stress Test Impacts' as the on-slide title — the action-title work has been pushed into the callout layer, defeating skim-readability