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
635 matching · page 13 / 27
62
narrative
global advisor earth day perils of perception environment gb
“A competent survey-results deck with a strong belief-vs-reality device and a clean three-pillar spine, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title-as-finding pairings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck stops analyzing on p.26 and never tells the audience what to do, recommend, or believe differently
62
narrative
What The Future Wellness
“An editorial foresight publication with a strong narrative hook and one clean MECE block ('Four tensions'), but it withholds its thesis and closes without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of stat-anchored hooks and tension framing, not of action-titled SCQA structure.”
↓ Titles are predominantly interrogative topic labels rather than declarative insights ('How does diet impact wellness?' p.12, 'How often do people see a doctor?' p.22) — readers must extract the takeaway themselves
62
narrative
Royal Foundation Attitudes to Early Childhood Key Findings PUBLIC 150622 41
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and a clean S->C opening, but it is an analytical walk-through that never lands a recommendation — use the first 7 slides as a teaching example of findings framing, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends on a data table (p.16) and a Contact page (p.17)
62
narrative
Presentation Half Year Results 260723 ENG FINAL VERSION
“A competent corporate earnings deck with disciplined callouts and several strong action titles, but its three-act structure is a reporting template rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for callout and action-title patterns on data slides, not as an exemplar of pillared storytelling.”
↓ Section dividers are categorical buckets, not strategic pillars — Financials/Business/Outlook is the default earnings template, not a MECE argument
62
narrative
Ipsos Global Advisor Earth Day 2023 Full Report WEB
“A competent Ipsos research tour with above-average action titles and pillar dividers, but it ends in a methodology-and-thank-you whimper with no recommendation — use the middle title craft as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on p.44 "THANK YOU" and p.45 "ABOUT IPSOS" with zero so-what
62
narrative
2020 Effie UK Report in partnership with Ipsos MORI
“A well-structured Effie findings report with strong action titles and a disciplined data+case-study rhythm, but it lacks a stated thesis up front and ends in a contact slide instead of a recommendation — useful as an exemplar for chapter cadence and title craft, not for narrative opening/closing.”
↓ Both 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' slides (p.4 and p.40) appear to be sparse title placeholders with no synthesis — the deck never actually delivers an exec summary
62
narrative
IBV Smarter Workforce Institute
“A competent IBV thought-leadership deck with a real recommendation (FORT) at the end, but the repeated topic-label titles and bloated context section make it a teaching example for naming discipline, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ The same title 'Amplifying employee voice' is reused on p.1, 4, 6, 8, and 22 — wastes the most valuable real estate on the slide
62
narrative
plastic omnium presentation goldman sachs 15th annual industrials et autos week 2023 12 06
“Competent IR presentation with strong analytical titles but a classic corporate-chronology structure — useful as an example of numeric title discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening is a cover + divider + three context slides with no 'so what'
62
narrative
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
62
narrative
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
62
narrative
Parthenon Profit Warnings Q3
“A competent quarterly-report build-up with strong callouts and data, but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act make it a teaching example of how editorial prose can rescue weak slide titles — not a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on a clickable map (p.13) and contacts page (p.14) with no recommendation or next steps framed as a 'so-what'.
62
narrative
Global Employee Survey – Key findings and implications for ICMIF
“A competent research-findings deck with strong mid-section action titles but a methodology-heavy opening and a non-committal close — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 6 slides on methodology before stating any insight — the thesis should lead, not follow the demographics
62
narrative
fd4b1c5071718761657e3d9fd9dec1092cda8949
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong data-led brand titles in the middle act, but it skips the Complication, breaks its own 5-pillar promise, and bookends with one-word titles — useful as a teaching example for action-titled brand slides (pp.13-18, p.23), not for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication: nowhere in pp.4-11 is a problem, threat, or competitive tension named, so the strategic priorities (p.6) feel asserted rather than earned.
62
narrative
Client Creditor Overview August 2023
“A competent creditor-update deck with disciplined action titles in the first two sections but a noun-label Section 3 and no closing — use pp.5-19 as a teaching example of action titling, not the overall arc.”
↓ Section 3 (pp.21-27) abandons action-title discipline — slides titled 'Net balance sheet', 'Funding and liquidity', 'NIM', 'MREL/TLAC requirements', 'Sustainability' are noun-labels, not insights
62
narrative
06 20230302 SDD Insights into Sustainable Finance Gov
“A competent two-pillar governance explainer with one sharp SCQA pivot (p.5→p.6) but a slow org-chart opening and a generic outlook/takeaways close — use the mid-deck pillar structure as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Opening spends three slides on org-chart context (p.2–3) before the tension appears on p.5 — buries the thesis
62
narrative
The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020
“A competently structured thought-leadership survey report with strong data presentation but a soft thesis and aspirational close - useful as a teaching example of chart-per-finding rhythm, not of SCQA narrative or prescriptive closings.”
↓ Generic repeated titles 'The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020' on p.5, p.19, and p.29 waste the most valuable real estate on the slide
62
narrative
New Mexico State Staffing Study
“A thorough, well-templated operational diagnostic with disciplined per-function mini-arcs and quantified savings, but it reads as a reference document rather than a persuasive story — use its diagnosis-to-recommendation template as a teaching example, not its overall structure or opening/closing.”
↓ No aggregate savings / total-opportunity slide at either the opening or the close — the reader must sum ~$15M+ across 11 functional sections themselves
62
narrative
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
62
narrative
Fintech
“A competent analytical Deloitte industry report with strong action titles on the diagnostic slides but a missing 'Answer' act — use pages 9-11 as a teaching example of tension-carrying titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the cover tagline 'On the brink of further disruption' is never restated as a crisp SCQA answer
62
narrative
Customer Service Excellence 2022
“A competent Deloitte research report with a strong executive summary and several declarative insight titles, but it dissolves into topic-labelled deep-dives and has no recommendation slide — use slides 5-6, 15 and 24 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide before the team bio — closing (p.27-28) is two 'Deep-dive' appendix-style pages followed by 'Who we are'
62
narrative
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
62
narrative
id18 utilizing technology
“A solid analytical investor-day deck with quantified action titles in the IT-spend and risk pillars, but weak opening, a repetitive client-journey middle, and no synthesized close — use the p.7-12 and p.42-43 sequences as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening (p.1-6) buries the thesis — no stakes, no SCQA setup, just cover + disclaimer + generic banner
62
narrative
20230530 A long way down Credit Suisse Rolf Sethe 11th EBI Academic Debate
“A chronologically compelling academic-debate narrative with a strong scandal-cascade spine and two genuinely original conclusions, but it buries its thesis behind seven 'Contents' dividers and repetitive price-delta titles — use the scandal-walk (pp.15-27) as a teaching example of dramatic sequencing, not the deck's structure.”
↓ Seven 'Contents' section dividers (pp.2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 28, 35) instead of named MECE pillars — the deck's structure is invisible to the reader
62
narrative
Retail resilience report
“A competent analytical research report with strong figure-level callouts in the middle, but it reads as a survey write-up rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of data callouts, not of narrative architecture, opening hooks, or closing recommendations.”
↓ No thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides — cover is a rhetorical question, p.3 is a topic label