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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on narrative
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A textbook Roland Berger thought-leadership deck with excellent action titles and a clean SCQA arc — use the title craft and stakes-first opening as exemplars, but flag the missing MECE dividers and the under-developed recommendation as the parts a Storymakers reader should not copy.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A well-crafted historical build-up that earns its thesis but stops at problem-framing — use slides 2-8 as a teaching example of inductive action titles, not the deck as a whole, since the recommendation act is missing.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “Tight, answer-first scenario-planning deck with strong analytical spine but a thin recommendation tail — use p.2 and p.5-9 as Storymakers exemplars for executive summaries and quantified action titles, not for the closing arc.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A textbook McKinsey diagnosis deck with a strong quantified middle but a buried thesis and a stakeholder-cautious close — use p.4-15 as a teaching example for analytical buildup, not the opening or closing.” — McKinsey, 2010
- “A textbook McKinsey diagnostic deck with a clean SCQA arc and strong action titles, but it stops one slide short of a committed recommendation — use pp.16-25 as a teaching example of narrative pivoting, not the closing.” — McKinsey, 2016
- “Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.” — McKinsey, 2014
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 21 / 46
62
narrative
250115 ucb company presentation jpm
“A competent investor-day narrative with clean two-pillar structure and a memorable 'Decade+' through-line, but it skips the complication act and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers action-title or SCQA model.”
↓ No upfront thesis or stakes — the first 3 slides (cover, disclaimer, vision) delay the actual investment story until p.5
62
narrative
250114 FRE prsn JPM SFO 0
“A competent investor-day narrative with a strong, memorable close but a context-heavy opening and missing complication act — useful as an example of declarative action titles and a portable closing equation, not as a model of full S-C-A-R structure.”
↓ No explicit 'complication' slide — the deck never states the tension or why-now that justifies the strategic reset
62
narrative
20250114 bayer handout jpm 2025
“A solid investor-relations handout with strong asset-level action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches headline discipline more than narrative architecture — use individual slides (p.7, p.10, p.13) as title-craft references, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the LoE transition (the actual investor tension) is acknowledged only in the closing title, never framed up front
62
narrative
2022 international consumer growth initiatives investor day
“A tight, well-titled investor-day excerpt that opens with the answer but trails off into M&A housekeeping; useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified claims, not for full-deck narrative architecture.”
↓ No Complication slide — jumps from 'opportunity' to 'we are investing' without articulating why now or what risk forces the move
62
narrative
2022 asset wealth management investor day
“A solid investor-day analytical build with a memorable five-pillar spine, but it skips the complication act and ends on KPIs rather than a commitment — use p.7-11 as a teaching example of MECE pillar structure, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'we're growing' (p.3-4) straight to 'here's how we'll keep growing' (p.5+) without naming the threat
62
narrative
2020 cib investor day
“A textbook investor-day deck with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts but no SCQA tension and no synthesis close — use slides 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 34, 35 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p18, p19, p20) reuse essentially the same action title about «continuity and completeness in coverage» — a tell that the argument was not decomposed MECE before titling
62
narrative
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
62
narrative
Reset Innovation Priorities
“A solid whitepaper-style how-to with a strong opening question and useful frameworks, but Storymakers-weak — figure-caption titles and a generic close make this a teaching example for analytical scaffolding, not narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are figure captions, not insights — every framework slide (p.4, p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.15) is titled 'Figure N: …'
62
narrative
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor stability in an unstable world
“A solid thought-leadership research report with disciplined section structure but written as an essay, not a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of pillar organization and section-divider headlines, not of answer-first openings or actionable closes.”
↓ Five identical 'Concluding thoughts' titles (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) waste the highest-leverage slot in each section
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
Earth Day 2024 Global Report
“A research-survey report with a strong executive summary bolted onto an analytical data dump — useful as a teaching example for action-title openers (p.4–11) and section pillar naming, but not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ ~75% of body slides title-recycle the survey question verbatim (p.13–37 especially), forcing the reader to derive insight from the chart rather than being handed it
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
Calumet+Inc.+Carbonomics+Investor+Presentation+Final+11+Nov.+'24
“A competent investor deck with strong quantified callouts and clean two-pillar segmentation, but it buries the recommendation mid-deck and closes on reconciliations — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and segment structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slides 27–30 are EBITDA/segment reconciliations and p.31 is a bare 'CALUMET' logo — no recommendation, no next steps, no memorable close
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
tifs investor presentation deutsche bank 17 june 21
“Competent IR deck with strong quantified middle-section titles but a weak hook and no closing ask — use the p.10–13 diversification/market-position slides as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on a margin-expansion chart (p.33) and then jumps to Appendix with no recap of the investment case