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
146 matching · page 3 / 7
68
narrative
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
“A rigorous, MECE-disciplined UK government-policy advisory deck with an admirably explicit recommendation thread - use the numbered-pillars structure (10 practicalities, 8 options) and the recommendation->timeline close as Storymakers teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which buries the rail-industry context in an end-of-deck appendix and opens too slowly to surface the thesis.”
↓ Background-on-the-industry section (p.134-170, 37 slides) sits at the END rather than the front, so context that should have set up the stakes instead trails the recommendation and dilutes the close
68
narrative
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
68
narrative
Trend 2030 Scarcity of Resources
“A high-quality trend compendium, not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp6-16 as a teaching case for metric-bearing action titles, but its methodology-led opening, hidden pillars, and thin recommendation tail make it a poor model for full deck architecture.”
↓ Methodology-first opening: pp1-4 sell the Compendium product before any insight; thesis arrives at p17
68
narrative
Bike Sharing 4.0
“A competent thought-leadership deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation, but the missing six-factor scaffolding and absent section dividers keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action-title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ The 'six factors' promised on p.3 are never explicitly enumerated or used as section dividers, so the analytical core (p.19-26) loses MECE clarity
68
narrative
Talent trends 2020 Upskilling: Building confidence in an uncertain world Findings from PwC’s 23rd Annual Global CEO Surv
“A PwC thought-leadership PDF with a recognizable narrative spine and a few genuinely strong action titles, but it dilutes its own argument with topic-label sub-sections and a soft, generic recommendation — useful as a teaching example for the p11/p14 titles and the 'More talk than action' tension move, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Numbered challenge slides p15-p18 collapse to topic labels ('What skills to teach', 'Paying for it') instead of carrying the insight in the title
68
narrative
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
68
narrative
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
68
narrative
Morgan Stanley Investor Presentation
“A competent IR deck with a clean three-pillar strategy spine but a missing Complication and a drifting close — use p.13-15 as a teaching example of pillared recommendation, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No explicit Complication: the deck asserts strength but never frames the tension (rate environment, student-loan policy risk, federal competition) the strategy is meant to resolve
68
narrative
The State of Fashion Luxury
“A disciplined McKinsey/BoF analytical deck with strong data-bearing action titles and a clear three-act spine, but it diagnoses far better than it prescribes and closes on a single generic recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Closing recommendation (p.50) is generic and singular — the 'five strategic imperatives' teased on p.7 are never enumerated as a numbered close
68
narrative
Outlook on the automotive software and electronics market through 2030
“A competent McKinsey market-outlook brief with strong action titles and an answer-first opener, but it lacks tension and a concrete recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.9 closes with a generic 'Conclusion' topic label and an exhortation rather than a prioritized recommendation or next-step list
68
narrative
Affordable Housing Challenge Blueprint
“A well-framed analytical deck with a clean MECE spine and quantified body slides, but it ends with a 'Thank you' instead of a recommendation and trails into a disorganized appendix — use the opening and four-lever build-up as a Storymakers exemplar, not the close.”
↓ Closing collapse: 'Thank you!' on p.35 is followed by 14 pages of appendix-style content (p.36-49) with no synthesis or call to action
68
narrative
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
68
narrative
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
68
narrative
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements
68
narrative
IAB State of Data 2023
“A solid analytical industry report with strong title discipline on the diagnostic middle, but the recommendation is buried mid-deck and the close trails off into sponsor matter — use pp. 11-25 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation arc is buried — the recap fires on p. 26 but the deck continues for 21 more slides of frameworks, appendix, and sponsor content
68
narrative
2023 Goldman Conference Presentation
“A solid investor-conference deck with disciplined action titles and peer-benchmark logic, but missing pillar dividers and a buried recommendation make it a good titles-and-callouts exemplar rather than a Storymakers narrative-arc exemplar.”
↓ No section dividers between the five thematic pillars — the deck reads as a flat sequence rather than a structured argument
68
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q3 2023 incl S&P update
“A competent IR/creditor update with strong action titles up front but a topic-dump credit-risk section and no real close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and MECE dividers in the first half, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ Creditor section (p.18–27) abandons action titles for topic labels — 'Current ratings', 'Net balance sheet', 'Derivatives bridge' — losing the insight-bearing voice
68
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2025
“A competent investor/creditor update with a clean answer-first 9-slide narrative and a heavy reference appendix; use p.2-9 as a teaching example of concise IR storytelling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — reader cannot see the pillar structure of the argument
68
narrative
02 20230302 SDD Strategy Outlook and Ambition for 2025
“A solid internal strategy-outlook deck with clean divisional MECE and a strong quantified ambition, but it buries the thesis and ends in a generic takeaways slide — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.8 — first four slides are mission/context with no hard number or stake
68
narrative
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title
68
narrative
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
68
narrative
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
68
narrative
e-Conomy SEA 2020 At full velocity: Resilient and racing ahead
“A solid industry research report with textbook action titles in its analytical core (p12–p60) but front-loaded with methodology, weak on an explicit recommendation, and tailing into a repetitive country appendix — use the sector-analysis middle as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The country section (p95–127) is six near-identical mini-decks with repeated generic titles ('Exponential growth of digital consumers (who will stay)', 'Investment in Internet sector') — a topic-dump, not an insight-led close
68
narrative
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis