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
737 matching · page 17 / 31
58
narrative
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
58
narrative
Global Business Services Performance improvement
“A thought-leadership whitepaper in deck form — usable as a 'numbered-guide scaffolding' example but not a Storymakers exemplar because it skips the answer-first opening, uses imperative topic titles instead of insight titles, and breaks its own six-step MECE promise.”
↓ Action titles are imperatives ('Develop…', 'Focus on…', 'Extend…') rather than insight-bearing declaratives
58
narrative
Accelerated Access Review UK Mapping
“A structurally MECE but narratively incomplete analytical mapping — useful as an exemplar of parallel-pillar taxonomy and case-study titling, but a cautionary tale on closing: the deck stops before the recommendation and should not be taught as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on Methodology/Glossary/Limitations (pp.103-108) with zero recommendations, owners, or sequencing of the 12 opportunities teased on p.10
58
narrative
2020 Deloitte Human Capital Trends: Government & Public Services Insights
“A disciplined three-pillar framework deck marketing a Deloitte+Oracle HCM service — structurally MECE but narratively flat; useful as a teaching example of parallel section architecture, not of action-title writing or resolution.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic labels ('Purpose', 'HR imperatives', 'Oracle Cloud HCM Enabling Capabilities' reused verbatim on p.10, p.15, p.20) — a reader skimming titles cannot reconstruct the argument
58
narrative
id19 growth in wealth management
“A competent investor-day update with strong quantified middle-section analytics but a stapled three-division structure, generic dividers and summaries, and no opening thesis or closing ask — useful as a teaching example of good action-title writing in the analytical core, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — slides 1–4 are cover, disclaimer, divider, and bullet highlights; the audience never gets a single-slide answer up front
58
narrative
Barclays Q1 2025 Review of Shareholder Activism 15 04 2025
“A data-rich quarterly market update with disciplined action titles and clean metrics, but it is a briefing — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never converts its analysis into a recommendation; use slides 11-16 as teaching examples for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No tension/complication act — the deck reports 'activity up' but never poses the 'so what' question for a target company or board
58
narrative
Barclays Investor Presentation 2018
“Competent investor-relations deck with a solid pyramid opener and case-study spine, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.15-20 and select titles (p.40, p.34) for teaching declarative titling and evidence stacking, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a problem, risk, or gap the strategy is solving — weakening the SCQA arc
58
narrative
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
58
narrative
20230215 Q422 FI Investor Presentation vFFF
“A competently structured FY22 fixed-income investor deck with strong MECE pillars and good metric-driven titles in the Performance section, but it is an analytical pillar-walk not a Storymakers arc — use its section architecture and action-title patterns as teaching material, not its opening or close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends on ESG ratings (p51) then appendix, leaving the reader with no 'therefore'
58
narrative
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
58
narrative
IT SERVICES The Rates of Success, Goals, and Future Priorities of Digital Transformations, by Sector
“A competent BCG benchmarking note with strong answer-first opening and insight-bearing analytical titles, but it ends without a recommendation and lets its core priority section collapse into topic labels — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the first half, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps act — deck ends on an ESG data slide (p.16) followed only by an author contact page (p.17)
58
narrative
COVID-19 BCG Perspectives Publication #5 with a focus on Revamping Organizations for the New Reality
“A hybrid briefing/publication with a strong analytical spine but no resolution act — use the economic-scenarios section (p.28-35) as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends at p.38 and drops straight into appendix (p.39-42), disclaimer (p.44), and contact (p.45)
58
narrative
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely
58
narrative
The Hotel Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent, well-chaptered Deloitte market-handbook that reads as analytical reference rather than persuasive story — use it as an example of MECE sectioning and hero-metric callouts, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or answer-first slide in the opening five — reader gets momentum stats but no argument
58
narrative
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“Evidence-rich trend primer with strong stat-titles in the middle but no resolution act — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends on a tools inventory (p.19) instead of a call to action
58
narrative
The Evolving State of Digital Transformation
“A well-crafted survey-findings brief with exemplary stat-led action titles, but structurally an analytical walk with no complication and no recommendation — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a narrative model.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — deck ends on p.16 describing COVID priorities, then a disclaimer, leaving the reader without a "now what"
58
narrative
Open Education Resources ecosystem
“Solid analytical middle with strong declarative titles, but it opens with framework scaffolding instead of a thesis and never closes with a recommendation — use pp. 8-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — p.16 is the only candidate and it defers to 'track metrics consistently', which is a process ask, not an answer
58
narrative
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q4 2023
“A strong-opening BCG pulse report with declarative action titles worth teaching from, but it has no closing act and buries itself in a 7-slide table appendix — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as exemplars for 'answer-first' titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends at p18 and then devolves into a 7-slide appendix of comparison tables (p19-25) with no recommendation or call-to-action.
58
narrative
2019 True-Luxury Global Consumer I nsight
“A data-rich BCG research readout with competent chart-level action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline on analytical slides, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what brands should do' slide — the deck ends at p.49 'THANK YOU' straight after a Made-in Italy chart
58
narrative
Year-end Macro Brief Into the Fog of Winter
“A polished macro chart pack with above-average action titles and a memorable 'winter' thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for slide-level title-writing, not for Storymakers full-arc structure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation act — deck ends on p.54's credit-crunch warning then jumps to team bio (p.55), leaving the 'so-what for executives' unanswered
58
narrative
Reinventing Operations in Asset Management
“A research-report-style thought leadership deck with strong stats but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example of stat-led callouts, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No declarative answer-first opening — p.1-3 set context without naming what Accenture believes the reader should do
58
narrative
Investor Analyst Conference
“A competent investor-conference results parade with genuinely strong declarative titles in the analytical middle, but it lacks narrative tension, MECE pillar scaffolding, and a real close -- use p.6/p.11/p.13 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p.14-16) share the exact same title 'Highlights of our 360 value for all our stakeholders' -- signals a topic dump where pillar discipline should live
55
narrative
Accenture Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A pitch deck with a strong emotional hook and a few well-voiced action titles, but it abandons narrative arc midway and ends with a question mark instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for opening hooks, not for full Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a '?' transition (p.14) and a title-card filler (p.15) instead of a recommendation or ask
55
narrative
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
“A competent Ipsos research deliverable with strong data discipline but weak narrative craft — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closing structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slide titles are survey questions, not insights — p.30 'Q. My country's national labour market' should read something like 'Views on labour-market impact split nearly 50/50, with sharpest negativity in Türkiye and Hungary'