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
130 matching · page 3 / 6
62
narrative
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with a strong hook and insight-bearing key-message slides, but it stops at analysis and never answers the 'so what' — useful as a teaching example for action titles and rhetorical setup, not for closing a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends p.27-30 in methodology, sources, and an About Ipsos boilerplate
62
narrative
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)
62
narrative
Navigating payments matrix
“A well-researched thematic walkthrough of payments trends with a genuinely useful 4 Rs framework, but it reads more like a magazine feature than a tight Storymakers argument — use the framework slides (p.21-23) as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.24-28) drift into regional trends and quotes with no call-to-action — the deck fizzles
62
narrative
China M&A 2024 Review and Outlook
“A well-structured PwC market review with strong slide-level action titles but a weak synthesis and outlook — use slides 5, 9, 10, 17, 20 as exemplars of action-title craft, but not the deck as a whole-arc Storymakers model.”
↓ Synthesis pages 31–33 are titled 'Key messages (1)/(2)/(3)' — pure topic labels on the slides that should carry the strongest insight titles
62
narrative
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
62
narrative
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
62
narrative
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
62
narrative
Agile Transformation
“A stat-rich KPMG survey report with a competent three-pillar diagnosis and good case-study cadence, but the thesis is buried at p.30, the close is a service pitch followed by 11 appendix pages, and pillars exist only in title prefixes — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored analytical builds, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ 11 of 42 pages (p.32-42) are appendix/country-background — over a quarter of the deck dumps undifferentiated country snapshots ('Background – Belgium', 'Background - Brazil', etc.) that read as raw survey output
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
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
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
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
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
62
narrative
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward
62
narrative
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
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
62
narrative
BCG Investor Perspectives Series
“Solid BCG research pulse-check with strong declarative titles in the analytical middle (p.7–17) but a topic-label executive summary and an appendix-dump close — use the middle 10 slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the deck as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends with a 7-page table appendix (p.19–25) and a contact page (p.26), so the executive reader gets data without a 'what to do Monday morning'
60
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Presentation
“A textbook bank-earnings deck with a strong declarative opening but a tail-heavy, recommendation-free close — useful as a Storymakers example for action-title openings, not as a model for full narrative arc.”
↓ Segment slides p16-p20 use division names as titles instead of insight statements
58
narrative
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
58
narrative
rmb morgan stanley conference quilter september 2019
“Competent investor-conference update with a clean three-pillar spine but missing the Complication and a real close — useful as an example of pillar structure and callout discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the problem the strategy is solving, so 'Business initiatives' (p10-14) feel like activities rather than answers
58
narrative
ey global ipo trends 2023 q4
“A competent quarterly market report with a sound geographic spine and several sharp action titles, but it reads as an analytical dump that buries a generic recommendation behind the appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast (insight titles vs «(Cont'd)» topic labels), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Eight slides titled with «(Cont'd)» variants (p.16–19, p.28–30, p.23) — these are topic labels, not action titles, and signal an analytical dump
58
narrative
Driving innovation at scale
“A McKinsey board-education deck with strong analytical mid-section and headline-grade data points, but it buries its recommendation in the appendix and opens with anecdote — use the fear-culture build (p.18–22) and the data-driven titles as exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is missing from the main body — p.24 closes on an open question, and the most persuasive numbers (2.4x profit on p.31, 97% outperformance on p.27, iQ CTA on p.32) are dumped into the appendix.
58
narrative
COVID-19 Business Recovery Vancouver
“A competent McKinsey scenario-and-learnings deck with disciplined three-pillar scaffolding and good quantified titles on data pages, but it buries its thesis at the open and dilutes its recommendation at the close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Opening is a slow burn — agenda on p.3 and a topic-label scenario chart on p.4 delay the thesis; no answer-first slide in the first 5 pages