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
374 matching · page 4 / 16
68
narrative
Insurance reimagined 2025
“Competent thought-leadership white paper with a real arc and parallel recommendations, but it buries the answer and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for the imperatives section (p.18-23), not for opening craft.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Where are we now?' (p.4-6) and a duplicate 'Five trends affecting the future of insurance' (p.7 and p.13) signal recycled topic labels rather than insight titles
68
narrative
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
68
narrative
Blurred lines FinTech 2016
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and disciplined 'so what?' moments, but it leans analytical-heavy and fizzles at the close — useful as a teaching example for answer-first openings and rhetorical titles, less so as a model of resolution.”
↓ Closing is anticlimactic — p.29 'Conclusion' is a generic label and there is no explicit recommendation or action slide before the appendix dump
68
narrative
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
68
narrative
the true value of green: willingness to pay for sustainability in consumer & home electronics
“Solid analytical mid-section with declarative titles and a clear conjoint backbone, but the deck buries its recommendation in a single 'Key takeaways' label - use slides 5-10 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is a single label slide ('Key takeaways', p.13) with no recommendation, action, or next step for the audience
68
narrative
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
68
narrative
The Heartbeat of Progress
“A competent OliverWyman thought-leadership study with strong action titles and a BLUF opening, but it ends in a soft conclusion plus decorative filler — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 17 pages flow as a topic list, hurting orientation
68
narrative
Assessing the Impact of Big Tech on Venture Investment
“A disciplined, evidence-led diagnostic deck with strong MECE pillars and declarative titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends without a call to action — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and action titles, not for narrative landing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck ends at p.27 finding and then jumps to appendix, with zero call-to-action or implications slide
68
narrative
us executive macroeconomic briefing february 20240223
“A strong analytical macro briefing with thesis-led opening and genuinely insight-bearing action titles, undermined by a platitude recommendation, an orphan slide near the close, and missing pillar structure — use the title craft and opening as a Storymakers exemplar, but not the resolution.”
↓ Resolution is generic: p.23 'transform uncertainty into opportunity' is a consultancy cliché rather than a recommendation derived from the prior 20 slides of analysis
68
narrative
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
68
narrative
What’s next for digital consumers
“A solid McKinsey insight memo with declarative titles and a real complication beat, but it buries the opening thesis and has no closing recommendation — use the title craft and p.8 tension as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening is soft: p.2 is a generic 'Introduction' instead of a thesis slide, costing one of the most valuable real-estate pages.
68
narrative
Moving Laggards Early Adopters
“Solid mid-tier McKinsey explainer with a strong analytical middle and a clear three-part recommendation, but it buries the thesis behind a generic problem-overview opener and fades into a 'Thank You' close — useful as a teaching example for analytical action titles, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ Duplicated/topic-label titles in the opening (pp.3-4 share 'Overview of Challenges with Technology Implementation in Manufacturing'); no thesis appears in the first 5 slides
68
narrative
Global Oil Outlook 2040
“A tight, well-titled market-outlook summary that opens strongly and writes excellent action titles, but stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on analysis (p.7) then boilerplate (p.8-9), violating the Resolution act
68
narrative
ASEAN Growth and Scale Talent Playbook
“A well-pillared analytical playbook with strong data-driven action titles, but it buries its thesis under 11 pages of forewords and ends without a recommendation — use the middle (pp.13-30 diagnosis, pp.31-67 MECE pillars) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the framing.”
↓ 11 slides of front matter (pp.1-11) with five forewords delays the thesis past any executive's attention budget
68
narrative
KPMG global tech report: Financial services insights
“A competently structured three-pillar thought-leadership report with a clean Analyze→Recommend rhythm, but more thematic survey than SCQA story — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline, not of opening/closing craft.”
↓ No explicit complication slide — p.4 lists findings but does not crystallize the tension that motivates the report
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
J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference 2025
“A competent investor-day deck with strong action-title discipline and clean financial build-up, but it lacks Complication and explicit pillars — use slides 6-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a threat, gap, or competitive pressure, so it reads as a victory lap rather than a story with stakes
68
narrative
2022 firm overview
“A confident, numbers-forward investor overview with strong action titles but a buried thesis and no MECE spine — useful as a reference for declarative, metric-anchored titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the deck takes until p.4-6 to assert leadership and until p.16 to land the ROTCE target; nothing on p.1-3 previews the answer
68
narrative
2022 commercial banking investor day
“Polished investor-day deck with strong action titles and a clean opening/closing thesis pair, but missing an explicit Complication and pillar signposting — use the title craft and closing pages as exemplars, not the overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Duplicate title on p.11 and p.16 ('Focused, strategic investments to capture organic growth...') signals a structural fault — either redundancy or unclear pillar boundaries
68
narrative
2020 firm overview
“A textbook BLUF-and-refrain opening attached to a P&L-line-item analytical dump and an inflated appendix — use slides 2, 9, 11, and 22 as title-writing exemplars, but not the overall structure as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or ask — p.25 summarizes performance but the deck lacks a 'so what / next' slide before agenda placeholders and appendix
68
narrative
2020 cb investor day
“A polished, on-message investor-day deck with disciplined action titles and a clean thematic spine, but it is a confidence narrative rather than a Storymakers SCQA arc — useful as an exemplar of title discipline and pillar sequencing, not as a model for tension-and-resolution storytelling.”
↓ No real Complication/tension — every slide reassures ('strong', 'well-positioned', 'substantial'), so the narrative lacks the SCQA pivot that would earn the resolution
68
narrative
13.02.23 Annual Results Presentation
“A disciplined annual results readout with answer-first opening and clean MECE pillars, but soft on tension and ends on a taper — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of structure and answer-first openings, not of dramatic arc or insight-bearing titles in data sections.”
↓ Topic-label titles in the financial section (p4 'Revenue Breakdown by Region', p6 'Revenue Breakdown by Audience', p10 'Change in Operating Margin', p13 'Debt by Maturity') waste the most insight-rich pages
68
narrative
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
68
narrative
2023.05.31 Bernstein Conference
“A disciplined investor-day growth narrative with strong quantified titles but a missing Complication and a soft close — useful as an exemplar of numeric action titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Complication slide — the deck never names the obstacle, competitive threat, or 'why this is hard,' so Situation flows straight to Answer without tension