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
44 matching · page 2 / 2
68
narrative
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“A competently structured Deloitte research report with a genuine MECE spine and flashes of strong action-title writing, but it withholds the thesis, under-delivers the close, and leans on topic-label placeholders — use its 'four actions' scaffold as a pillar exemplar, not its opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis is withheld: the executive summary (p.3) describes scope rather than stating the answer, forcing readers to p.6 to meet the central question
68
narrative
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A solid diagnostic survey deck with strong action-titled middle analysis but a hedged opening and a one-slide recommendation — use p.8-16 as a teaching example of insight titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: p.4-5 'Executive summary' callouts are hedged and don't state the one-line answer; no BLUF in first 3 slides
68
narrative
Socio-economic case for deepening solar PV deployment in Nigeria
“A textbook BCG pillar-analysis deck with exemplary action titles and MECE structure, but it buries the recommendation in a single slide and ends on 'Thank you' — use the middle (p.20-76) as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not the opening or the close.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.85) after 76 pages of analysis — 12 interventions named but no prioritization, owners, or sequencing
68
narrative
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
62
narrative
Lloyd’s and Bermuda
“A competent analytical talk-deck with a strong middle (quantified action titles, well-built reserving and rate-hardening story) but a definitional opening and a hand-wave ending — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analysis slides, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no thesis or stakes — reader doesn't know the question being answered until ~p.11
62
narrative
CEO Panel Survey Emerge Stronger
“A competent survey-readout deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation slide, but the placeholder titles and thin close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.3/p.4/p.7 as title-writing teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Four slides (p.5, 6, 10, 12) carry the placeholder title 'CEO Panel Survey | n' — wasted real estate where an action title should live
62
narrative
2024 TransAct Middle East
“A competent annual M&A landscape report with sound MECE pillars and a strong cover thesis, but it functions as a reference scan rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.1, p.8, and p.12 as positive title examples and the rest of the body as a cautionary case for chart-caption titles.”
↓ Most sector pages (p.14-20) use bare colon-terminated topic labels ('Consumer markets:', 'Healthcare:') instead of insights, hiding the 'so what' from a skim reader
62
narrative
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription
62
narrative
IIF/McKinsey Cyber Resilience Survey
“A competent McKinsey survey deck with strong action titles in the diagnosis section but a buried thesis and a collapsed ending — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and quantified callouts, not as a model of full SCQA narrative architecture.”
↓ First 5 slides are all front matter and methodology; the thesis is buried — by p.5 a reader still doesn't know what the deck argues
62
narrative
KPMG global AI in finance report
“A competent thought-leadership research report with a clean four-pillar spine and good metric discipline, but it reads as an analytical survey rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as an example of section architecture and metric-anchored slides, not of action-title craft or SCQA opening.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never frames a complication or burning question before diving into framework (p.5) and benefits (p.8)
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
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
The Future of Food Challenges & opportunities
“Competent data-rich industry report with a clear three-theme framing but weak Storymakers craft — use its metric-anchored analytical slides (p.13, p.26, p.28) as teaching examples, not its overall arc or titling discipline.”
↓ No answer-first opening: thesis is diluted across p.4-8 and never crystallized into a single provocation or recommendation slide up front
58
narrative
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A credible analytical findings deck with strong diagnostic action titles but essentially no Resolution act -- use p.3, p.11, and p.14 as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is one slide (p.15) with a question-as-title -- the entire Resolution act is missing
55
narrative
4th edition eReadiness 2023
“A strong research-report exemplar with disciplined action titles and clean MECE segmentation, but a weak Storymakers arc — buries a 2-slide recommendation at the end of 70 pages of analysis; use the analytical title-writing as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendations compressed to just 2 of 83 slides (pp.79-80) and both carry the identical generic title — the 'so what' is essentially unwritten
55
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Presentation
“Competent investor-relations earnings deck with a quantified opening and disciplined callouts, but organised by reporting taxonomy rather than narrative — use p.2-5 as a teaching example of leading with numbers, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Segment section (p.15-19) titles are pure nouns — 'Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank' — forcing the reader to the callouts to extract the story
55
narrative
Foodservice Market Monitor
“Analytically rigorous market monitor with above-average action titles, but structured as a data compendium that buries its single recommendation before a tool pitch — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for Storymakers arc design.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.4, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38) substitute for real MECE section dividers and break narrative momentum
55
narrative
mercury rising
“A polished thought-leadership trends report with strong callouts and evidence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a teaching case for analytical-survey decks that miss the answer-first opening and recommendation-led close — use the callout craft, not the structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the foreword/exec-summary pairing (pp.3–4) defers the thesis instead of leading with 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.
52
narrative
20230608 172439 CWCU 9YRZMYZ26FO0PKXJ.1
“A competent quarterly REIT investor update with strong, metric-driven action titles, but it is a topic-organised reporting pack rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides like p20, p16 and p5 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No complication act — the deck never names a problem, risk or strategic question, so there is nothing for the analysis to resolve