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
137 matching · page 5 / 6
55
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality industry monitor with strong action-titled charts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches slide craft (declarative titles, parallel sub-structures) rather than narrative architecture — use individual slides as examples, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next moves' slide — the deck ends at p.50 on a data point, then methodology
55
narrative
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“A short McKinsey POV primer with strong quantified action titles and a credible SCQA setup, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and impact sizing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution/recommendation slide — deck ends at slide 9 on an executive-sentiment data point with no 'so what'
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
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
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
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
55
narrative
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
55
narrative
2019 Holiday Survey of Consumers Keeping the good times rolling
“A competently titled but structurally flat research-findings deck — use its slide-level action titles and quantified callouts as teaching examples, but not its architecture, which buries the recommendation and ends on a methodology slide.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — the 'How to win the holidays' section (p.29-31) is only 3 slides and describes high-spender demographics rather than prescribing retailer actions
55
narrative
Investor Presentation Deck
“A competent investor-relations positioning deck with a solid financial middle section but no complication, no recommendation, and titles that hide their numbers — useful as a 'callout-writing' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: eight context slides (p.3-10) stack positioning without ever naming a threat, gap, or decision the reader must make
55
narrative
Q125 Results Presentation
“A disciplined bank earnings readout with strong group-level action titles but topic-label divisional openers and a thin narrative frame — useful as an exemplar of numeric headlines on group slides, not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Division-opener KPI dashboards (p.4, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24) are topic labels, not action titles — they waste the prime spot of each section
55
narrative
Essity Barclays Consumer Staples Conference 2017 tcm339 48081
“A standard investor-conference company overview with a predictable spine but topic-label titles and no narrative tension — use it to teach what to avoid (noun-phrase titles, buried thesis, redundant 'Summary' pages), not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no stakes or thesis — the point is buried until p.9-10
55
narrative
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“Analytically rigorous macro chart-pack with strong action titles in the first third, but it abandons the story arc halfway and ends without a recommendation — use pp.5-21 as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the deck structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on p.61 yield curves and p.62 About Accenture, so the reader never gets an ask
55
narrative
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“A well-titled macro chart pack masquerading as a narrative deck — use pages 5, 10, 13 and 15 as teaching examples of declarative action titles, but not the overall structure, which sets up tension then trails off into an indicator appendix with no recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.56 (credit-risk analysis) then p.57 About us, with zero recommendations, scenarios, or watch-items for the executive audience the TOC promised
52
narrative
IPSOS HEALTH SERVICE REPORT 2024
“A competent global-survey data release with MECE pillars and strong headline numbers, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case — topic-label titles and a missing resolution act make it a reference for analytical structure, not narrative.”
↓ Action titles are essentially absent — pp.7, 20–22, 24, 30–40, 42–47 use the verbatim survey question as the title, forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
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
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
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 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
48
narrative
Spring 2022 National Client Meeting
“An event-agenda deck dressed as a strategy story — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.45, p.46, p.56) but a weak Storymakers exemplar overall because it has no resolution and stitches three independent narratives together.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on Netflix-content trends (p.59–62) and 'Thank you!' (p.65) with zero recommendation, ask, or next-step — the closing_ask tag is misleading.
48
narrative
POPULISM IN 2024
“A rigorous data report dressed as a deck — strong sample and a useful proprietary index, but it reads as a crosstab parade with no recommendation, so it's a counter-example for Storymakers titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p47 on a spending crosstab and then drifts into methodology and corporate boilerplate (p48-51)
48
narrative
Namibia Budget on plate 2019-20
“A topic-organised PwC budget walkthrough with strong data and decent callouts but no thesis, no MECE pillars, and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No lead-with-the-answer slide in positions 1-3; the deck never tells you what PwC concludes about the 2019/2020 budget
48
narrative
luxury2019
“An EY luxury factbook with a memorable hook and exemplary financial-chart titling in its middle act, but no resolution and lazy navigation — use pp.12–29 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a story arc.”
↓ Closing dissolves into four near-duplicate 'How can luxury fashion embrace digital?' slides (pp.75–78) with no synthesis or recommendation — the deck ends without answering its own opening question
48
narrative
Venture Pulse Q3 2024
“A reference-grade quarterly intelligence report with unusually disciplined action titles and MECE geographic structure, but no SCQA arc and no close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and parallel section design, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — the deck ends at p.91 with regional data and rolls straight into 'About us' (pp.92–94) and disclaimers (pp.95–96)