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 33 / 46
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
55
narrative
ipsos reputation council report 2024
“A competent thought-leadership compendium with strong problem framing and quantified pull-quotes, but its topic-label titles, four 'Conclusion' slides, and missing closing recommendation make it a teaching example of analytical depth without a Storymakers narrative spine.”
↓ Four slides titled simply 'Conclusion' (p10, p15, p20, p25) — wasted real estate that should carry the section's takeaway in the title
55
narrative
ipsos populism report 2025
“A well-framed research report with a strong opening thesis that then devolves into an un-narrated data atlas and ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how action-title discipline collapses once you enter the evidence chapters, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a spending data table (p.55) and methodology, with zero implications or recommendations
55
narrative
inv research 20220928 crypto asset survey EN
“A competent topic-organized survey report with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — use the p.5-8 Key Findings pattern as a teaching example of leading with the answer, but not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — p.12 'Crypto Ownership' instead of '13% of Canadians own crypto, skewing young, male and investor-leaning'
55
narrative
does the us have a positive influence around the world ipsos survey 2025
“A short data-release deck that hooks with a question but never answers it — useful as a cautionary example of how strong cover questions get buried by topic-label data slides and a contact-card close.”
↓ No answer slide: the cover poses a question but no slide explicitly resolves it with a headline takeaway
55
narrative
What The Future Intelligence
“A thought-leadership magazine with strong action titles and a crisp thesis, but it diagnoses endlessly and never prescribes — useful as a teaching example of declarative slide titles and data-driven build-up, not as a model for Storymakers arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck has no 'so what / now what' slide; last substantive page (p41 'Future optimism gaps') diagnoses rather than recommends
55
narrative
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible
55
narrative
Ipsos Global Views on AI and Disinformation full report
“A well-titled Ipsos data-release deck with solid declarative findings but no SCQA arc or recommendation — useful as an exemplar of headline-stat action titles, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No 'So what?' — deck ends at p.6 with a data point, skipping any recommendation, implication, or next step
55
narrative
Ipsos Global Happiness Index 2025 1
“A solid research-data report with two strong insight titles but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 7-9 as examples of good action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at heatmaps (p.19-20) and jumps straight to Methodology — no synthesis, recommendation, or implication slide
55
narrative
G@ Earth Day 2021
“A well-opened research report with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it ends in a topic-labelled data dump with no recommendation — use p.2–3 and p.8–10 as teaching examples for hooks and insight titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication or call-to-action slide — deck ends with 'THANK YOU' (p.44) and 'ABOUT IPSOS' (p.45) after a disclaimer
55
narrative
Education Monitor 2024 Ipsos
“A competent research-monitor publication with a strong answer-first opening and several model action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 4-14 and pp. 20/46 as teaching examples of insight titling, and use the pp. 47-58 sequence as a cautionary example of MECE failure and of a deck that analyses without ever recommending.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on methodology (p.73) and 'For more information' (p.74), with no recommendation or call to action
55
narrative
IBV Global Business Services Cover
“A concept-led IBM thought-leadership piece with a clear thesis but weak editorial discipline on titles and no sharp call to action — useful as a teaching example of framework reveal (p.8, p.10), not of Storymakers action-titling or closing craft.”
↓ The phrase 'The Individual Enterprise' is reused as a title on p.1, p.4, p.6, p.8, and p.18 — the deck leans on the brand phrase instead of differentiating each slide's insight
55
narrative
state of workplace study
“A competent research/thought-leadership report with stats-driven callouts and a topical three-pillar spine, but it buries the recommendation — use p8, p9, and p21 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No complication slide — tension is implied by stats but never dramatized, so p8-p29 reads as an analytical dump
55
narrative
Goldman Sachs Sixteenth Annual ANZ Investment Forum Presentation
“A competent corporate IR/forum overview with clean section architecture but topic-label titles in the segments block, no complication, and an appendix that duplicates the main narrative — useful as an example of MECE structure and occasional declarative financial titles, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Operating-group section uses the segment name as the slide title 3-4 times each (slides 28-36 and again 63-66) — readers can't tell pages apart by title alone
55
narrative
Goldman Sachs Presentation Final
“A competent investor-conference deck with a strong analytical mid-section but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — use slides 7-12 as a mini exemplar of action-title + callout discipline, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides; p.3 'U.S. Bancorp' is a topic label where a point-of-view slide should be
55
narrative
GOLDMAN SACHS MEDTECH AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES CONFERENCE
“A standard investor-conference template with competent analytical slides but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label titles and a missing thesis flatten an otherwise reasonable story, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — p.1–4 never tell the audience what the ask or argument is; p.4 CSR derails the flow
55
narrative
Aspen Presentation GS Emerging Leaders Conference
“An investor-conference company story with solid quantified proof points but no thesis upfront and no ask at the end — useful as an example of case-study framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide — reader has to infer the investment argument from scattered data points across p.3-4
55
narrative
2025 05 28 Goldman Sachs Brazil Commodities Days
“A competent investor-conference IR deck with textbook three-pillar structure and strong analytical chapters, but it delays substance, labels half its slides by topic, and ends ceremonially — use the pulp-analysis sequence (p.30-42) as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — pages 1-5 are cover, disclaimer, two dividers and a governance boilerplate slide, burning the reader's attention before any claim lands
55
narrative
IFRS 9 Impairment Banking Survey
“A dense, insight-rich benchmarking survey whose callouts do the storytelling while the titles abdicate it — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks a resolution act and mistakes a numbered TOC for a narrative spine.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — p.6-17 all read '1. Impact assessment – [subtopic]' with the actual finding hidden in the callout
55
narrative
GenAI wealth asset management
“A competent survey-highlights report with strong per-slide action titles and a coherent analytical middle, but it's not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.7–19 to teach stat-led action titles, not the overall structure, which lacks a complication, named pillars, and a closing recommendation.”
↓ Five separate 'Contents' slides (p.2, p.4, p.6, p.20, p.23) with no pillar labels act as filler dividers rather than MECE signposts
55
narrative
GenAI retail commercial banking
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative action titles in its analytical middle, but it reads as a research dump rather than an argument — use pp.8-18 as a teaching example for metric-anchored titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do about it' slide — the deck ends at p.22 with a use-case list and never resolves the S→C→A→R arc