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
146 matching · page 5 / 7
62
narrative
Global Restart Key Dynamics COVID-19
“A competent mid-crisis analytical update with strong insight-bearing chart titles but no story arc - use pp.10/16/24 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (pp.6 and 30 both titled 'Key dynamics of the restart') collapse the pillar structure and signal no MECE spine
60
narrative
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
60
narrative
Consolidated Full Presentation
“A disciplined investor-day portfolio update with strong action-title and callout craft within each LOB, but no firm-wide story arc — use individual sections (especially the CCB Banking and CIB Markets builds) as teaching examples for slide-level Storymakers discipline, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No firm-wide narrative spine: the macro tension on p.7 and p.16 never resolves into a 'so therefore' for the whole firm — it dissolves into five parallel LOB stories
60
narrative
Presentation+Leonardo+GS+Investor+Meeting
“A competent IR reporting deck with a thesis-first opening and several strong metric-bearing action titles, but fragmented by six agenda resets and fizzled by a financial-appendix ending — useful as a teaching example for numeric action titles (p.8, p.26, p.30), not for narrative arc or closing craft.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.2, 11, 21, 33, 35, 42) act as inert section gates instead of insight-bearing pillar dividers
60
narrative
Payment providers
“A competent HFS/Deloitte analyst report with genuinely strong action titles in its analytical middle, but structurally it's a topic-dump with a buried thesis and no recommendation — use slides 17/20/24/25 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ Thesis is buried — executive summary sits at p.16/34, so a reader skimming the first third never meets the argument
58
narrative
2022: a record year for MENA IPOs
“A competent EY-style market report with strong pull-quotes and a real underlying thesis (MENA decoupling), but structured as a geographic data tour rather than an argument — useful as a reference for headline-metric framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative construction.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.8–11) share the identical title 'MENA IPO performance for 2022 listed companies' — readers cannot distinguish them in a TOC or thumbnail view
58
narrative
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
58
narrative
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
58
narrative
ey global ipo trends 2022 v1
“A competently-opened thought-leadership piece with strong stat hooks and one clean MECE pillar, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends on a hedge — useful as an example of strong opening framing, not of a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck trails off into a repeated hedge title on pp.10-11 and a disclaimer on p.12
58
narrative
ey emerging tech at work 2023 report updated
“A short EY survey-report deck with a strong human-centered hook but no resolution — useful as an example of leading with the answer (p.4), not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — p.9 is 'Questions | Contact us' rather than a recommendation or next-steps slide
58
narrative
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
58
narrative
Global tech report 2022
“A competent thematic survey report with strong individual data slides but a weak Storymakers spine — useful as an example of section-divider rhythm and quote/case-study texture, not as a model for answer-first narrative architecture.”
↓ No answer-first opener: p.4 'The headline numbers' is a label and the thesis never appears in the first 5 slides
58
narrative
NBI 2023 Press Release Supplemental Deck December 23
“A competent research-report deck with a strong mid-section of declarative KDA titles, but it buries its Japan headline behind four methodology slides and ends in appendix/boilerplate — use pp.21–22 as a title-craft exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Thesis buried: it takes 9 pages to reach the Japan headline; a press-release deck should lead with it on slide 1 or 2
58
narrative
IBV The Cognitive Enterprise
“A competent IBM thought-leadership brief with the right ingredients (client cases, a stake stat, next steps) but undermined by repeated topic-label titles and an invisible pillar structure — useful as a teaching example of why action-titling and section dividers matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides reuse the identical title 'The Cognitive Enterprise: The finance opportunity' (p.4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18), erasing any sense of forward motion
58
narrative
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
58
narrative
Leadership: Driving innovation and delivering impact The Deloitte Global Chief Procurement Officer Survey 2018
“A competent annual survey report with MECE pillars and good benchmarking, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends in reference content — useful as a section-architecture exemplar, not as a model for opening, closing, or action-title craft.”
↓ Recommendations compressed into a single slide ('Action starts here', p.35) and placed before the industry/regional appendix — the call to action is structurally buried
58
narrative
EFX+ +Barclays+Credit+Bureau+Day+Presentation+2023
“A respectable investor-day deck with strong KPI-driven action titles but a broken ending and missing pillar structure — use slides 7 and 13 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing is broken: filler slide (p.10) + 'Appendix' divider (p.11) precede the real key-takeaways (p.12) and headwind chart (p.13), so the deck ends without a landing
58
narrative
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
55
narrative
PEOPLE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
“A competent insights report with pockets of strong action-titled storytelling, but it leans on repeated topic labels and a 40-page data appendix that buries its own recommendation — useful as a teaching example for individual insight titles (p9, p15, p20, p26), not for overall structure.”
↓ Title fatigue: 'Perceptions and understanding of climate risks' is used as the title for six distinct slides (p6, p8, p12, p13, p14, p16), making the deck feel like a topic dump instead of an argument
55
narrative
Audio today 2022 How America listens
“A thesis-driven Nielsen marketing deck with strong action titles and a memorable opening hook, but it collapses into a data dump with no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck dies in data tables (p.14-15) and a boilerplate corporate slide (p.16)
55
narrative
Romanian E Mobility Index REI 4 (Fourth Edition)
“A competent index-update deck with strong action titles and answer-first opening, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends on a methodology explainer (p.15) and authors (p.16)
55
narrative
Aluminum Cans Market Assessment - Australia
“Solid analytical fact-base with declarative titles, but it's a research dossier rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and MECE benchmarking, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution — the deck ends on p.34 with an economics observation and p.35 logo; reader is left to infer the 'so what'
55
narrative
ey uli fow global survey 2020 report
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with strong headline discipline but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide; deck dissolves into 'About ULI / About EY' on p.24-25 instead of resolving the argument
55
narrative
ey global consumer health survey 23 global findings and highlights v2
“A research-report-as-deck: solid quote-titled findings and a usable 2x2, but structured as a six-country data catalog with no closing recommendation — use the country-slide titling style as a teaching example, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ 14 slides titled 'Summary, continued' (pp.6-11, 13-15, 17-19) — a navigational failure that destroys reader orientation and signals the deck wasn't given proper action titles