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 15 / 27
58
narrative
6th ICO STO Report Strategic
“A competent short market-study deck with above-average action titles, but it ends on a credentials pitch instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of strong data-slide titling, weak as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ Closes on a service pitch (p.11) + 'Thank you!' (p.12) with no synthesized recommendation or 'so what' for the reader
58
narrative
APAC Family Office Study
“A competent thought-leadership study with strong analytical-section action titles but a weak narrative spine - useful as a teaching example for action titles and pull-quotes, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Opening trio (p.1-3) is pure front matter - no thesis, no stakes, no hook before p.5
58
narrative
Decarbonization in ports and shipping
“A competent thought-leadership / business-development deck with strong action titles and a clean macro-to-micro context build, but it stops short of a recommendation and pivots to firm credentials — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and SCQA setup, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Self-promotion crowds the narrative: p.2, p.3 and p.11 are credentials/RB-targets slides in a 12-page deck — 25% of the real estate is about the firm, not the client problem
58
narrative
e-mobility in India
“A competent PwC point-of-view deck with quantified action titles and a coherent analytical build, but it opens slowly and resolves into a generic takeaways page — use its title-writing and callout craft as a teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — the PoV ('holistic ecosystem approach') is buried on p.9 instead of pages 1–3
58
narrative
[Presentation title] 6th ICO / STO Report
“A competent market-update report with strong individual action titles but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for title-writing and callouts, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'Executive Summary' is a label, not an answer — a true exec summary should state the thesis in the title
58
narrative
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“An IAB/PwC industry benchmark report with exemplary action-title craft and a clean opening hook, but a one-slide recommendation section turns it into an analytical dump — use pp.7-22 as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall narrative structure.”
↓ Resolution is a single slide (p.26) after 14 analytical slides — recommendations are not unpacked, prioritized, or owned
58
narrative
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competently-titled industry barometer with one excellent thematic mini-arc (China/SEA, p.20–24) but no SCQA resolution — use individual action titles like p.20 as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Outlook (p.25–26) is a single content slide with a topic-label title — the natural 'answer' moment of the deck is empty
58
narrative
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
58
narrative
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
58
narrative
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025: Hong Kong summary
“Solid analytical mid-deck with good action titles in the segment dives, but a weak thesis-free opening and a tangential Gen AI tail leave it as a useful teaching example for MECE segment build-up — not for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No SCQA hook in opening — p.4-5 establish scope without naming the central question or answer
58
narrative
Innovation Engine for Growth Playbook
“A solid methodology playbook with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, undermined by a marketing-brochure opening, topic-label titles, and excessive divider padding — use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the narrative or title craft.”
↓ Slides 1–5 burn the entire opening on cover/filler/dividers/TOC; thesis doesn't appear until p.6 — fails the 'lead with the answer' test
58
narrative
eyp global economic outlook jan 2024
“A well-titled, evidence-rich economic outlook with a strong thematic spine but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for declarative action titles and scenario framing, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No closing act: the deck ends with country analysis (p.36) → 'Agenda' (p.37) → bios (p.38-39) → disclaimer; zero synthesis, recommendation, or implications slide
58
narrative
ey sports engagement index january 2025
“A competent research-report deck with strong action titles in the analytical core, but it is a topic-organized data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for arc construction.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.18 'we continue to track many other sports' with zero recommendations or implications for sports bodies, sponsors, or rights holders
58
narrative
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
58
narrative
ey global ipo trends 2023 q2 v1
“A competently structured EY educational primer with a 5W1H spine and a service pitch tail — useful as a teaching example of MECE topic coverage, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with questions instead of answers and closes on credentials instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are nouns or questions throughout (pp.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) — the deck never tells you the answer in the title bar
58
narrative
ey global ipo trends 2022 v1
“A competently-opened thought-leadership piece with strong stat hooks and one clean MECE pillar, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends on a hedge — useful as an example of strong opening framing, not of a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck trails off into a repeated hedge title on pp.10-11 and a disclaimer on p.12
58
narrative
ey gl hfs horizons insurance services excerpt 06 2025
“A competent HFS-style analyst research report with disciplined methodology and a few strong data-titled slides, but structured as a topic-organized findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action titles on pp.21-22 and p.27, not for overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck terminates in vendor profile (p.27) and front-matter (pp.29-30)
58
narrative
ey emerging tech at work 2023 report updated
“A short EY survey-report deck with a strong human-centered hook but no resolution — useful as an example of leading with the answer (p.4), not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — p.9 is 'Questions | Contact us' rather than a recommendation or next-steps slide
58
narrative
20231114 MorganStanley APAC Summit Presentation slides
“Competent corporate-update deck with strong quantified callouts in its quarterly section but no SCQA spine and a buried thesis — useful as an example of metric-led titles, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never poses the strategic question it is answering, so the audience must infer the 'so what'
58
narrative
2023 MS Conference Presentation
“A solid lead-with-the-answer investor deck for the first 11 slides that then dissolves into a 19-slide reference appendix — useful as a teaching example for thesis-first openings and peer-benchmark titling, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 60% of the deck (p.12-30) is appendix; the narrative effectively ends at p.11 with no recommendation or call-to-action slide
58
narrative
Transportation Warehousing Sector
“A disciplined McKinsey diagnostic with strong MECE numbering and metric-laden action titles, but the recommendation is under-staged at p.22 and the deck loses its arc in the back third — use the p.8-20 problem-and-evidence sequence as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is an appendix dump: p.39-40 'Other:' case studies sit outside the 1-5 challenge framework and replace what should be a 'so what / next steps' slide.
58
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor 2021
“A solid, data-dense market monitor with disciplined action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a reference document not a story — use its individual analytical slides as title-writing exemplars, but not its overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening and no recommendation close — p.2 asks 'What is this document for?' and the deck ends on methodology (pp.41-44) with no 'so what / now what' slide
58
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality analytical monitor with exemplary action titles and quantified framing, but it reads as a reference almanac rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for title craft and data-comparison slides, not for arc structure or closing.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck ends on appendix/team bio (pp. 101–103) after a speculative AI tangent (pp. 99–100)
58
narrative
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer