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 21 / 31
55
narrative
ey global ipo trends 2023 q1 v1
“A competent quarterly market-update deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but no Resolution act — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.10 SPAC data and goes straight to Definitions/Contacts, leaving the reader without a recommendation
55
narrative
enhaced data extraction using gen ai ey collaboration with wlastic
“A research-paper-styled EY/Elastic case study with a real quantitative payoff buried under topic-label titles and a vacuous conclusion — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and a closing 'R' should fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Seven consecutive slides titled 'Use case implementation evaluation (Cont'd)' (p.8–13) — the canonical anti-pattern for action titles and section structure
55
narrative
Morgan+Stanley+Conference+Presentation
“A competent investor-conference showcase with strong action titles and a quantitative spine, but it is a parade of proof points rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative structure or closes.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action; deck dies into a disclaimer at p.10 and a brand plate at p.11
55
narrative
University of Arizona 2018 Strategic Plan
“Solid MECE pillar architecture with quantified callouts, but topic-label titles and a missing closing slide make it an institutional planning document, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for how strong structure cannot rescue weak action titles.”
↓ Action titles are nouns, not insights — every initiative slide is titled 'Pillar X Initiatives (n of m)' with zero takeaway
55
narrative
The individual health insurance market in 2023
“A solid analytical market briefing with disciplined, number-led action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 5–12 to teach insight-bearing titles, not the deck's overall arc, which lacks Complication, pillars, and Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so-what' — deck ends on p. 12 data and a wordmark (p. 13)
55
narrative
The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it
“Competent McKinsey explainer that opens well and uses number-led titles, but it is an analytical breakdown not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of clean BLUF openings and quantified action titles, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'what this means for you' slide — deck jumps from STEM funding (p.7) straight to author bios (p.8).
55
narrative
Review of 2024 capital markets performance
“A competent McKinsey market-review chartbook with strong action titles and a clever median-vs-mean build, but it lacks a resolution act and a real exec summary — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at p.13 with a trend observation rather than a recommendation or 'implications for executives' close
55
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality industry monitor with strong action-titled charts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches slide craft (declarative titles, parallel sub-structures) rather than narrative architecture — use individual slides as examples, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next moves' slide — the deck ends at p.50 on a data point, then methodology
55
narrative
European Banking Summit 2018
“A well-titled benchmarking spine that diagnoses Europe's capital-markets gap clearly but stops before answering 'so what' — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of declarative chart titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends on a precedent tease (p.9) and a contact slide (p.10) instead of a recommendation
55
narrative
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“A short McKinsey POV primer with strong quantified action titles and a credible SCQA setup, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and impact sizing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution/recommendation slide — deck ends at slide 9 on an executive-sentiment data point with no 'so what'
55
narrative
AI Healthcare Errors
“A well-evidenced analytical case-study tour with strong mid-deck action titles, but it lacks the SCQA opener and synthesis closer needed to work as a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 9, 15 and 16 for teaching declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the title promises 'preventing healthcare errors' but no slide in pp.1–8 sizes the error problem or names the Question
55
narrative
Education: 2023 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2024
“A competent thought-leadership / BD deck with metric-led titles in the retrospective half but no thesis upfront and no recommendation at the close — use the 2023 retrospective (pp. 6-15) and the AI mini-arc (pp. 39-42) as title-craft teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No thesis slide upfront — p.5 names 'four key themes' but the title doesn't enumerate them, forcing readers to discover them across 10+ slides
55
narrative
2022 Manufacturing Survey
“A competent survey-results executive summary with a clear thesis on p.4 but topic-label titles and a data-dump close — useful as a teaching example of how analytical credibility alone doesn't make a Storymakers deck.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9-10) are a 2-of-2 data appendix, not a recommendation — no 'where to play / how to win' synthesis
55
narrative
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
“A meticulous Kearney FactBook with strong action titles and MECE pillars but no narrative resolution - use slides 4, 14, 17 and 50 as exemplars of declarative titling, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers archetype.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide - the deck ends on patent counts (p.147-148) and a list of active companies (p.149) rather than 'what should the reader do'
55
narrative
Global Assignment Policies Practices
“A competent survey-report deck with strong evidentiary density and some good action titles, but structurally a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title rewriting, not for arc design.”
↓ Opening wastes 5 slides on cover/TOC/intro/methodology before any insight — the BLUF (bottom line up front) is absent
55
narrative
GenAI Survey 2024
“A competent survey-findings deck with above-average action titles but no narrative resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing on data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on a regulation stat (p.12) with zero «recommended actions» or «what to do Monday morning» slide
55
narrative
Captive Insurance Guide
“A competent educational primer that reads as a topic-ordered brochure rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for how topic titles and an appendix-heavy close drain persuasive force.”
↓ Every section title is a noun phrase — 'Structures', 'Key players', 'Lifecycle' — none carries an insight or recommendation
55
narrative
presentation us tl strategy sma
“A textbook 4Ps JPMAM fund-marketing deck with a strong analytical middle (Case + Process) but a credentials-led opening and a data-dump close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled industry-trend pages and case studies, not for SCQA narrative structure.”
↓ Thesis is buried: pp. 1–7 are cover, TOC, divider, and firm credentials; the strategy itself doesn't appear until p.8 — no 'lead with the answer' slide.
55
narrative
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
55
narrative
business leaders outlook pulse 2023 ada
“A competently-written survey-results deck with strong callout writing but no narrative arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles—use it as a counter-example of how a thoughtful exec summary can be wasted by a structureless body and a missing close.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or call-to-action anywhere in the deck—it ends on 'External threats' (p.8) then methodology
55
narrative
LCG SMA
“A polished but conventional asset-manager pitchbook — strong on credentials and a few sharp action titles, but it buries the real 2025 story and ends without a recommendation; useful as a teaching example of topic-organized brochure structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening — pages 1–5 establish firm scale ($4.1T) but never name the question the deck answers; the reader has to wait until p.18 to find the real story (2025 underperformance).
55
narrative
Keynote address
“Solid analytical briefing with above-average action titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — useful as an exemplar of evidence-anchored analytical slides, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation — slide 21 is just 'THANK YOU!', wasting the highest-recall slot in the deck
55
narrative
wai ipsos innovation misperception epidemic
“A thesis-forward research note that lands its hook in the first two slides but then devolves into a data tour with no recommendation — use p.1-2 as a teaching example of strong openings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.13 demographics/usage table and then two 'About' bios (p.14-15) with zero recommendations
55
narrative
ipsos the perils of perception 2024
“A competent research-findings report with a clear thesis but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of how strong opening callouts and one well-titled correlation slide (p.35) get drowned by question-as-title data dumps and a missing recommendations act.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights - p.13/14/15 all share the same interrogative title with no takeaway