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
726 matching · page 15 / 31
62
narrative
barclays global credit 2024
“A competent investor-day-style segment walkthrough with solid MECE by business unit and strong quant callouts, but it buries its overall thesis at both ends and repeats a single generic title nine times — use the Insurance sub-section (p.57–62) as the storytelling exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides p.8–16 all titled 'Ascend Technology Platform' — the single biggest title-quality hit in the deck; the reader cannot skim the narrative
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
62
narrative
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward
62
narrative
FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation
“A polished, MECE earnings deck with disciplined action titles in the financial walk but no Complication and a recycled close — useful as a teaching example for top-down financial titling and divisional MECE, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication act — nowhere in the first 10 slides is a tension, headwind, or stakeholder doubt named, so the 'progress' story has nothing to push against
62
narrative
Barclays+Investor+Presentation+vFINAL
“A competent investor-conference deck with a real thesis (valuation disconnect) and good callout discipline, but 55% appendix, no pillar structure, and a reconciliation-table ending make it a fair example of analytical framing - not a Storymakers exemplar of narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 11 of 20 slides (p.10-20) are appendix material - the deck is structurally back-heavy and the storyline ends at p.9
62
narrative
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
62
narrative
UNC Chapel Hill Cost Diagnostic
“A competent Bain diagnostic with a clear options inventory but soft narrative framing and lazy pagination titles — use p.14 as a teaching example of an insight-bearing title, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: 5 slides of front-matter before the key findings on p.6
62
narrative
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
62
narrative
Syracuse University Diagnostic Report
“A credible Bain fact-base diagnostic with strong methodology framing but a sprawling middle and near-absent recommendation — use the setup (p.7-8) and two early insight titles (p.12-13) as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Buried thesis — no answer-first slide; the core tension (expense growth outpacing revenue) appears at p.12, not p.3
62
narrative
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer
62
narrative
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
62
narrative
Perspectives on WMATA's ridership
“A competent analytical build-up that diagnoses the ridership problem well but ends on a question instead of an answer — useful as a teaching example of retrospective diagnosis and action titles, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation act: p.27 'What does this all mean for WMATA's ridership?' is the final content slide and it asks rather than answers
62
narrative
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“A solid insight-driven survey summary with a strong paradox hook and numerate titles, but it stops at analysis and never prescribes action — use p.3/p.11 as examples of tension-framing, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck stops at diagnosis (p.13) with no recommendation, roadmap, or 'what companies should do' slide
62
narrative
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
62
narrative
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
62
narrative
Global Restart Key Dynamics COVID-19
“A competent mid-crisis analytical update with strong insight-bearing chart titles but no story arc - use pp.10/16/24 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (pp.6 and 30 both titled 'Key dynamics of the restart') collapse the pillar structure and signal no MECE spine
62
narrative
Economic Impact of Ford and F-Series
“A polished BCG advocacy/impact report with exemplary action titles and pillar structure but no SCQA tension or closing recommendation — use slides 7–14 as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.27 with another benchmark slide, then disclaimer (p.28) and a Ford|BCG marker (p.29)
62
narrative
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017
“Rigorous, defensible public-sector budget-analysis report with a strong quantified thesis up front and clean MECE pillars, but it reads as a reference document rather than a Storymakers deck — use the exec summary (p.7-9) and impact rollup (p.118-127) as teaching exemplars, not the overall structure or the tail.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends on scenario table p.183 and appendix p.185-190, so the reader has no 'therefore, decide X' moment
62
narrative
The Best Service Providers for Commercial Banks, 2025
“A competent analyst-report excerpt with a clean skeleton and one strong hook, but it buries the ranking, closes on a vendor placard, and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example of section architecture and the p2 hook, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Thesis (seven Horizon 3 leaders named on p15) is buried 60% of the way through the deck
62
narrative
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
62
narrative
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
62
narrative
February Macro Brief
“A well-titled, thesis-opened macro periodical that functions as a chart-pack briefing rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.1-22 as a teaching example of opening + regional MECE, but the 40-slide indicator tail and missing recommendation make the full deck a weak structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing/recommendation act — deck dies on p.62 bond-yield chart and p.63 team bio; the capex thesis is never re-landed for the executive reader
60
narrative
ey tt amcham presentation 2023 economic outlook 20230123
“A competent survey-results deck with strong action-title craft on individual slides, but structurally it is a parallel findings dump rather than a Storymakers argument — useful as an exemplar of action-title writing, not of narrative arc.”
↓ No upfront answer — the thesis/recommendation is never stated in the first 5 slides; the reader must reach p9 for the first insight and p35 for the conclusion
60
narrative
Asia-Pacific 2022 Hospital Priorities Survey: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent analytical survey readout with disciplined numeric action titles and a strong mid-deck pivot, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers' its title promises — use pp.3-10 as a teaching example of front-loaded findings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the subtitle — deck ends on p.21 data then contact/disclaimer