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
726 matching · page 9 / 31
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
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
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
The ultimate healthcare experience: what people want
“A competently structured four-pillar research brief with a clean MECE scaffold but a weak opening hook and a toothless closing — useful as a teaching example of section architecture, not of action titles or calls-to-action.”
↓ Recommendation slide (p.19) uses a descriptive paragraph as its title instead of a directive action title — the single most important slide doesn't prescribe
55
closing
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
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
55
closing
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
55
closing
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
55
closing
TSS Index 2025 France
“A solid analytical BCG index deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the recommendation in one sparse slide and ends on a diagnostic rather than a close — use p.2-10 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Sector deep-dive titles (p.11 'Chemicals', p.12 'Transportation & Logistics', p.13 '2024 Performance Overview') are topic labels, not insights — loses the action-title thread built earlier
55
closing
US Natural Gas Future Standalone
“Strong analytical build with disciplined action titles and well-named pillars, but the arc sequences scenarios before constraints and closes with a restatement rather than a recommendation — use it as a Storymakers exemplar for title craft and pillar labeling, not for SCQA sequencing or endings.”
↓ Section order inverts SCQA: Scenarios (p16-18) come before Constraints (p19-21), so the 'question' is posed before the complication that makes it urgent
55
closing
2017 China Luxury Market Study
“A well-titled analytical market briefing with strong pull-quotes but no prescriptive payoff — use it as a teaching example for action titles and evidence-backed callouts, not for story architecture or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.15 and p.19 hint at brand plays but none crystallize a prescriptive next step
55
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2020 At full velocity: Resilient and racing ahead
“A solid industry research report with textbook action titles in its analytical core (p12–p60) but front-loaded with methodology, weak on an explicit recommendation, and tailing into a repetitive country appendix — use the sector-analysis middle as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The country section (p95–127) is six near-identical mini-decks with repeated generic titles ('Exponential growth of digital consumers (who will stay)', 'Investment in Internet sector') — a topic-dump, not an insight-led close
55
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“A high-craft thought-leadership report with exemplary action-title discipline and clean MECE pillars, but it opens procedurally and trails off into a country appendix instead of landing a recommendation -- use its titles and section architecture as a Storymakers teaching example, not its opening or closing.”
↓ Opening burns 7 slides on front matter before the thesis lands at p.8 -- no hook or stakes in the first 5
55
closing
Insights from the leading edge of generative AI adoption
“Solid Deloitte thought-leadership survey deck with strong action-title craft in the middle but a diffuse opening and a repetitive four-slide close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative structure.”
↓ Four closing slides titled identically 'Next: Looking ahead' (p.25, 27, 29, 30) — reader cannot distinguish the recommendations or track progress
55
closing
New Brunswick Supply Chain Study
“Thorough, analytically-rigorous public-sector supply-chain study with a competent opening thesis and disciplined scenario analysis — but titles default to topic labels and the recommendation is crushed into one slide after 23 pages of diagnosis; use it as a teaching example for demand modeling and vendor mapping structure, not for Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels — e.g. p.6 'Key Findings', p.28 'Vendor categorization', p.56 'Risk mitigation plan' — wasting the title real-estate that Storymakers treats as the primary message channel
55
closing
Risk management in transformation
“A competently structured analytical survey report with a visible three-act spine and a recommendation slide, but too many titles are topic labels or figure captions — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture and front-loaded takeaways, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Roughly a third of body slides use raw figure captions as titles ('Figure 10...', 'Figure 15...', 'Figure 24...', 'Figure 25...') — topic labels, not findings
55
closing
Reset Innovation Priorities
“A solid whitepaper-style how-to with a strong opening question and useful frameworks, but Storymakers-weak — figure-caption titles and a generic close make this a teaching example for analytical scaffolding, not narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are figure captions, not insights — every framework slide (p.4, p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.15) is titled 'Figure N: …'