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 59.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
374 matching · page 12 / 16
55
narrative
GOLDMAN SACHS MEDTECH AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES CONFERENCE
“A standard investor-conference template with competent analytical slides but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label titles and a missing thesis flatten an otherwise reasonable story, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — p.1–4 never tell the audience what the ask or argument is; p.4 CSR derails the flow
55
narrative
Aspen Presentation GS Emerging Leaders Conference
“An investor-conference company story with solid quantified proof points but no thesis upfront and no ask at the end — useful as an example of case-study framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide — reader has to infer the investment argument from scattered data points across p.3-4
55
narrative
2025 05 28 Goldman Sachs Brazil Commodities Days
“A competent investor-conference IR deck with textbook three-pillar structure and strong analytical chapters, but it delays substance, labels half its slides by topic, and ends ceremonially — use the pulp-analysis sequence (p.30-42) as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — pages 1-5 are cover, disclaimer, two dividers and a governance boilerplate slide, burning the reader's attention before any claim lands
55
narrative
IFRS 9 Impairment Banking Survey
“A dense, insight-rich benchmarking survey whose callouts do the storytelling while the titles abdicate it — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks a resolution act and mistakes a numbered TOC for a narrative spine.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — p.6-17 all read '1. Impact assessment – [subtopic]' with the actual finding hidden in the callout
55
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
55
narrative
Arion Bank Fireside chat slides
“A competent investor-update deck with strong quantified action titles and clean macro framing, but it is analytical reportage rather than a Storymakers narrative — use pp.7–10 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication or tension: the deck never names what is at stake or what decision the audience must make
55
narrative
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
55
narrative
Third-party governance and risk management The threats are real
“A data-rich Deloitte survey report with a clear diagnostic thesis ('execution gap') but no Resolution act and too many topic-label titles — use pp.22/26/28 as examples of good action titles, not the overall deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on technology analysis (p.35) then jumps straight to bios/contacts with zero recommendations or next-steps slide
55
narrative
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway
55
narrative
Executive Compensation at Deloitte Delivering global insight and expertise
“A competent capabilities brochure with a few strong benchmarking action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is mid-tier — useful to teach title-writing in the middle section, not to teach narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No complication or 'so what' — the deck presents market facts (p.3-7) without telling the reader why these trends threaten or pressure them
55
narrative
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
55
narrative
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
55
narrative
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
narrative
PR Barclays Presentation 9.06.22 FINAL Update
“A competent investor-pitch deck with rigorous quantitative evidence but a weak narrative scaffold — useful as an example of strong financial pillars and supporting callouts, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening, MECE structure, or closing.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages — the merger rationale is buried at p6 behind disclaimers and bios
55
narrative
Barclays H12023 Results Presentation
“Competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and disciplined main-body action titles, but it has no real story arc, a dead 'Outlook' close, and a topic-labelled appendix — use pp3-24 as a teaching example of metric-anchored action titles, not as a Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Dead close: p25 'Outlook' is a bare topic label with no recommendation, no ask, no memorable line — the deck whimpers into the appendix
55
narrative
2024 Barclays ESG Conference Presentation
“Competent IR-style conference deck with clean chapter structure but thesis-lite opening and topic-label section dividers — useful as a teaching example of section-divider rhythm and SCQA Question slides (p.24), not of action-title craft or opening/closing discipline.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening is a standard corporate intro, not a Storymakers hook
55
narrative
Streaming Video Back to Future
“A tight analytical insight deck with strong action titles slide-by-slide, but missing the opening thesis and closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title-writing, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1 is a mood title and p.2 jumps into a chart finding with no stated question or stakes.
55
narrative
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')
55
narrative
Investor Perspectives Q1 2023
“Competent BCG research-pulse deck with a strong analytical middle and quantified action titles, but no recommendation, no MECE pillars, and a seven-slide appendix dump for a close — use p6/p9/p15 as teaching examples of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p26 is just contact info, so the deck answers «what do investors think» but never «what should the reader do about it»
55
narrative
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
55
narrative
A&M Valuation Insights – German vs. European Banks
“Tight, well-titled analytical brief with strong headline+driver titles but no thesis opener or recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full S→C→A→R narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.5 is labeled key_takeaways but reads as another data slide, and p.6 jumps straight to contacts
55
narrative
Pulse of Change Index
“A well-titled survey-findings summary with a strong analytical core but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified hooks, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a data point (p.10) and methodology (p.11), with zero 'what to do about it' recommendation
52
narrative
Deloitte Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but conventional RFP-orals proposal — earns partial credit for an early thesis (p.4) and a quantified timeline title (p.6), but defaults to a methodology walk with topic-label phase titles, muddled Phase Three repetition, and a closing that fades into Q&A and 'About Deloitte'; useful as an example of RFP scaffolding, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing is essentially absent — p.16 'QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION' followed by p.17 'About Deloitte' with no recommendation, ask, or decision-required slide
52
narrative
WHAT THE FUTURE: WELLNESS
“An Ipsos editorial trends magazine masquerading as a deck — strong hook and a usable 'four tensions' framework, but the question-as-title habit and 15-slide quote appendix make it a counter-example for Storymakers, not an exemplar.”
↓ Question-titles dominate (p.6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) — the reader has to do the synthesis the deck should be doing