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 9 / 27
55
closing
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
55
closing
Navigating uncertainty: PwC’s annual global Working Capital Study
“A competently structured PwC thought-leadership report with strong quantified stakes and clean section architecture, but topic-label titles and a soft service-pitch close keep it firmly in the 'analytical report' lane rather than the Storymakers exemplar tier.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic nouns or 'Figure X:' captions — the deck reads like a report TOC, not a story
55
closing
2024 TransAct Middle East
“A competent annual M&A landscape report with sound MECE pillars and a strong cover thesis, but it functions as a reference scan rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.1, p.8, and p.12 as positive title examples and the rest of the body as a cautionary case for chart-caption titles.”
↓ Most sector pages (p.14-20) use bare colon-terminated topic labels ('Consumer markets:', 'Healthcare:') instead of insights, hiding the 'so what' from a skim reader
55
closing
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
55
closing
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“Competent short-form macro outlook with a textbook arc and two model action titles, but it buries the lead and asks rather than answers in the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for p.6-style titles, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening 3 slides (cover, outline, dashboard) bury the lead — no thesis stated in the first 5 pages
55
closing
Artificial Intelligence: Ready to Ride the Wave?
“A polished BCG executive-perspectives deck with strong action titles and a clear opening thesis, but it ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation — use pp.3-4 and pp.14-20 as Storymakers exemplars for opening and action titles, not for closing structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck drifts from p.20 recommendation straight into appendix deep-dives with no 'next 90 days' or CTA
55
closing
The time for climate action is now
“A solid BCG thought-leadership piece with strong numerate action titles and a real S→C→R backbone, but the flat 7-action list and soft, appendix-tailed close make it a better teaching example for title quality than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Front matter bloat: p.1-3 all live in setup/context mode before the problem lands on p.5, burying the lede
55
closing
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“Solid analytical build with a genuinely strong tension hook on p.8, but the recommendation is under-developed and the close fades into annex — use the paradox framing and country-benchmark sequence as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slide p.22 is advisory-but-vague; no explicit 'what to do Monday morning' recommendation list
55
closing
2015 Fintech New York Partnerships
“A short marketing/thought-leadership brief with solid data-driven titles on two slides but no narrative spine or recommendation — use p.3 and p.5 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis stated in the first 3 slides — the cover promises 'Partnerships, Platforms and Open Innovation' but those three pillars never organize the body
55
closing
Hydrogen applications and business models
“An exhaustive, well-titled reference FactBook with consultant-grade analytical rigor but a buried thesis and a missing resolution — use the business-case section (p.128-184) as a teaching example for evidence ladders, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or pyramid lead — the integrating answer ('heavy-duty transport is the most promising near-term H2 business model') sits on p.14-15 of a 192-page deck instead of p.3
55
closing
European Deep Tech – Opportunities and Discoveries
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with a clean A–E narrative spine and quantified titles, but it buries the thesis up front and fizzles into a generic 'collective effort' close — use sections B and C as Storymakers exemplars, not the bookends.”
↓ Closing slide p.18 is generic ('collective effort from all actors') with no recommendations, owners, or next steps — and contains a typo ('Deel Tech')
55
closing
Outlook on the automotive software and electronics market through 2030
“A competent McKinsey market-outlook brief with strong action titles and an answer-first opener, but it lacks tension and a concrete recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.9 closes with a generic 'Conclusion' topic label and an exhortation rather than a prioritized recommendation or next-step list
55
closing
2022 retail industry outlook
“A compact, co-branded Deloitte+Workday POV with a workable problem→answer spine but topic-labelled bookends and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of mid-deck action titles (p.5, p.7), not of opening or closing craft.”
↓ p.3 'Executive summary' is a label, not a thesis — the deck never leads with its answer
55
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
55
closing
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
55
closing
2023 Ipsos Global Trends Report
“A well-crafted trends report with disciplined action titles and a strong opening hook, but it reads as an encyclopedia of twelve parallel chapters rather than a single argument — useful as a teaching example for chapter-level structure and title craft, not for overall narrative escalation or closing punch.”
↓ Twelve trend chapters of near-identical structure flatten the narrative — there is no escalation or ranking of which trends matter most for the reader
55
closing
ipsos global trends 2021 report
“A genuinely well-titled, MECE-structured trends report that earns its analytical middle but fumbles the close — use slides 18–46 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the ending.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what': the deck ends on a rhetorical question (p.50) and a corporate slide (p.51) — readers leave without an action
55
closing
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
55
closing
ey global ipo trends 2023 q4
“A competent quarterly market report with a sound geographic spine and several sharp action titles, but it reads as an analytical dump that buries a generic recommendation behind the appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast (insight titles vs «(Cont'd)» topic labels), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Eight slides titled with «(Cont'd)» variants (p.16–19, p.28–30, p.23) — these are topic labels, not action titles, and signal an analytical dump
55
closing
2023.05.31 Bernstein Conference
“A disciplined investor-day growth narrative with strong quantified titles but a missing Complication and a soft close — useful as an exemplar of numeric action titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Complication slide — the deck never names the obstacle, competitive threat, or 'why this is hard,' so Situation flows straight to Answer without tension
55
closing
Goldman Sachs conference April 2021
“A competent investor-conference update that opens with the answer and lands a guidance upgrade, but soft pillar structure and an appendix-then-contact ending keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.2, p.5, p.11, p.12 as action-title teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Weak close: last substantive slide is a reconciliation (p.15) and the deck ends on «Contact» (p.18) with no recommendation or forward-looking ask
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
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