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 38 / 46
52
narrative
Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025
“A competent Ipsos data-release brief with two genuinely insightful titles, but structurally a findings dump with no SCQA arc and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how strong individual insights get buried by a topic-led running order.”
↓ Slides 4–6 reuse the survey-question text verbatim as titles, abdicating the action-title discipline
52
narrative
CCPC Investments Research Sept. 2021
“A competent market-research findings deck with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide headlines, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' close: the deck ends on p.13 with another finding and then 'CONTACTS' (p.14), so the reader leaves without a call to action.
52
narrative
goldman sachs may 2021
“A competent IR/earnings presentation with above-average action titles, but structurally a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative design.”
↓ No Situation→Complication setup: jumps from sustainability theme (p.3-10) straight into Q1 results (p.11) with no bridging tension
52
narrative
Tenth Annual Leveraged Finance and Credit Conference
“A competent investor-relations deck with a workable resilience narrative but a buried answer, a broken appendix boundary, and a logo-only close — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence chaining (p.7-9) but weak as a Storymakers exemplar of arc, dividers, and closing.”
↓ Closing slide (p.26) is just the company logo — no CTA, no summary, no ask
52
narrative
Fresenius SE 2023 06 13 14 Goldman Sachs 44th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
“A standard corporate IR deck with disciplined callouts and one strong transformation thesis (ReSet→ReVitalize) that is buried on p.18 and never re-asserted at close — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label dividers and an appendix-heavy tail dilute an otherwise defensible narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.18 — first 5 slides are cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider/generic context with no stakes or answer-first framing
52
narrative
gpc genai ocsummaryv2 content
“A credible Gartner survey digest with a strong sample-size hook and decent per-function action titles, but structurally it is an analytical dump — no SCQA arc, blank section dividers, and a marketing CTA where the recommendation should be; use the per-function slides (p.26–36) as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Repeated identical titles on consecutive slides (p.4–6 'Barriers…', p.7–9 'Identifying… Benefits', p.10–12 'Pinpointing Use Cases') signal a topic dump rather than a build
52
narrative
apr12jlovelock 840572
“A data-rich Gartner webinar deck with strong metric-anchored titles in the middle but a missing thesis-up-front and no recommendation close — useful as a teaching example of quantitative chart titling, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis up-front — the Russia-Ukraine cover (p.3) is not answered by an executive summary slide; the viewer waits until p.9 for framing
52
narrative
Gartner Introduction 2025
“A well-crafted investor introduction with a strong opening thesis and several exemplary quantified action titles, but structurally a company tour - use individual slides (pp. 3, 17, 29, 35) as Storymakers title-writing exemplars, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Repeated identical divider title 'Gartner: Who We Are' across six slides destroys MECE signaling
52
narrative
Infrastructure Barometer Italy
“A classically-structured EY barometer report with credible data and sharp callouts, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar: topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act turn a potentially confident point of view into a survey readout.”
↓ No recommendation or Resolution act — the deck ends at p.12 on a 'divided opinion' note followed by Contacts, violating the Storymakers answer-first principle
52
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q4 2023 Fixed Income Call
“Investor earnings disclosure — not a consulting deck — with strong action-title discipline in the main section but no SCQA arc and a collapsed close; use p.2-15 titles as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc — there is no Complication slide framing rate risk, CRE exposure, or cost pressure as the tension the deck resolves
52
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q3 2024 Presentation
“A competent IR earnings deck with strong executive-summary title discipline but a reporting (not story) spine — use slides 2-6 and the segment block (p16-p20) as teaching examples for action-title openers and MECE decomposition, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Analytical slides default to topic-label titles (p8 'Key performance indicators', p10 'NII/NIM', p31 'NII sensitivity') instead of stating what the data shows
52
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q2 2024 Presentation
“Solid bank earnings report with a strong thesis-first opening but a muddled close and topic-labeled analytical middle — use p.2-6 as a teaching example for action-title exec summaries, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Segment section (p.15-19) uses pure noun titles ('Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank') — misses the chance to state each segment's insight
52
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2023 Presentation
“A competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and strong callouts, but structurally an analytical status report rather than a Storymakers narrative — use its executive summary and segment callouts as exemplars of answer-first writing, not its overall arc or title discipline.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never frames a problem or tension, so the analysis has nothing to resolve; it reads as a status update, not a story
52
narrative
Trends & AI in the Contact Center
“A competent survey-plus-capabilities deck with strong data callouts but a weak story spine — use its quantified pull-quotes as a teaching example, not its structure or titles.”
↓ Six near-identical section dividers (pp.2,4,6,8,10,12) eat ~20% of the deck without differentiating pillars — dividers should be MECE, not refrains
52
narrative
Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2017 The new luxury consumer
“A competent annual industry benchmark report with strong data and occasional insight-bearing titles, but structurally a topic-organized analytical dump with a buried thesis and an appendix close — use pp.13, 31, and 39 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on methodology/appendix/contacts (pp.47–52) with zero recommendation or 'so what' slide
52
narrative
Global Fashion & Luxury Private Equity and Investors Survey 2021
“A credibility-heavy Deloitte research report with strong evidence density and a front-loaded takeaways block, but structurally an analytical dump: topic-label titles, no resolution, and a close that reverts to respondent demographics — useful as a teaching example of 'how to carry a metric in every callout', not of Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Closing sequence p.52–56 is respondent profile, not recommendation — the deck ends on 'who answered the survey' rather than 'what investors should do'
52
narrative
Digital Consumer Trends 2023
“A well-executed annual trends report with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc and no recommendation - use its title craft and callout discipline as a teaching example, not its structure.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on cost-of-living data (p.43) and a 'visit our hub' card (p.44), with zero recommendation or so-what
52
narrative
Deloitte 2019 Industry 4.0 Readiness Survey
“A tidy four-pillar benchmark excerpt with solid action titles in the middle but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — useful as a teaching example of parallel-pillar analytical slides, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or «so what» slide — the deck ends on Methodology (p.8) with zero call to action
52
narrative
CEOs ready to face up to crises
“A competent Deloitte survey report with declarative section dividers but topic-label slide titles and no resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how pillar dividers and data-rich callouts can carry a deck despite weak within-section titles and a missing recommendation close.”
↓ Slide titles are topic dumps, not action titles — p.7, 8, 9 are all titled 'Strategy'; p.25-28 all titled 'Financing'; the reader cannot skim for the argument
52
narrative
csg investor day 2016 sru
“A competent investor-day progress report with several strong metric-led titles, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar — it lacks SCQA setup and pillar structure, so use individual action titles (p4, p8, p11) as teaching examples rather than the deck's architecture.”
↓ No Situation/Complication setup — the deck never explicitly frames why the SRU story matters before diving into metrics
52
narrative
2022 esg report
“A competent but structurally conservative ESG reporting document - strong as an index-backed compliance artefact and acceptable as a pillar-architecture example, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because titles are topic labels, there is no closing argument, and the deck reports rather than persuades.”
↓ Titles are topic dumps rather than insights - 'MATERIALITY' (p.10), 'TALENT DEVELOPMENT' (p.18), 'CLIMATE CHANGE' (p.37), 'DATA PRIVACY' (p.40) surface no finding even when the callout already contains one
52
narrative
barclays global credit bureau forum v30
“Competent investor-day roadshow with strong slide-level quantified titles inside each segment, but no overarching narrative spine or closing synthesis — use the mid-section analytical build-ups (Ascend p.26, Verify p.29–30, Serasa p.50–60) as teaching examples of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck leads with agenda/CFO Q&A instead of an answer-first insight
52
narrative
Barclays Q12023 FI Presentation
“Bank fixed-income IR deck with disciplined action titles in the performance core but no narrative spine and no closing ask — useful as a teaching example of declarative title-writing on financial slides, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends at ESG ratings (p.48) and an appendix (p.49-51) with zero recap, recommendation, or call to action for FI investors
52
narrative
2024 usb barclays presentation conference deck
“A competent investor-conference positioning deck with solid per-slide craft but no story arc — useful as a reference for action titles and quantitative callouts on specific slides (pp. 6, 8, 9, 13, 18), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication or thesis in the opening — pp. 3-7 establish scale but never frame a question the deck answers