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 6 / 7
55
narrative
A global view of how consumer behavior is changing amid COVID-19
“A well-titled McKinsey research briefing with a clean setup and a framework promise on p.4, but it is an S-C-A deck with the R amputated — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.18 heatmap + p.19 disclaimer with zero recommendations, implications, or next steps
55
narrative
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
“A meticulous Kearney FactBook with strong action titles and MECE pillars but no narrative resolution - use slides 4, 14, 17 and 50 as exemplars of declarative titling, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers archetype.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide - the deck ends on patent counts (p.147-148) and a list of active companies (p.149) rather than 'what should the reader do'
55
narrative
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
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
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
55
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2025 Presentation
“A textbook earnings-deck opening married to an appendix-heavy tail — use p.2–p.6 as a teaching example of thesis-first framing, but not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation behind a premature appendix divider.”
↓ Premature 'Appendix' divider at p.20 buries the actual close (p.21 '2025 financial targets' recommend, p.22 shareholder distribution commitment) inside what readers will skip
55
narrative
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway
55
narrative
Foodservice Market Monitor
“Analytically rigorous market monitor with above-average action titles, but structured as a data compendium that buries its single recommendation before a tool pitch — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for Storymakers arc design.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.4, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38) substitute for real MECE section dividers and break narrative momentum
55
narrative
US Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Report
“A competent annual DEI progress report with a clean three-pillar MECE spine and strong human case studies, but its topic-labeled titles, absent recommendation, and self-congratulatory close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar architecture as a teaching moment, not the titling or the ending.”
↓ Data slides (p.10–15) are labeled by topic ('New Hires', 'Representation by Groups') rather than by insight, so the reader never learns what the numbers prove
55
narrative
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A well-titled diagnostic brief with a clean opening but no recommendation or MECE spine — use the action-title craft on pp.2/5/8 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a diagnostic finding (p.8) plus a methodology page (p.9) with zero recommendations or next steps
52
narrative
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them
52
narrative
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
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
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
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
50
narrative
Beyond thenoise: Orchestrating AI-driven customer excellence
“A thorough KPMG research whitepaper with a usable 7-step middle act, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on titling, opening hook, and closing — use the 7-step implementation spine as a teaching example for sequential build, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Implementing AI' is reused on five separate slides (p.23, 25, 28, 32, 35) and 'Highlights from the 2024 CEE research' on three (p.5, 11, 12) — placeholder titling, not action titles
48
narrative
Market Year in Review and Outlook 2021
“A competent industry-association data briefing with a few exemplary action titles and callouts, but structurally an analytical dump with empty dividers, mid-deck methodology, and a non-sequitur close — useful as a teaching example for individual slide titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ p.4 section divider wastes a structural slot by just repeating the deck title instead of naming the pillar
48
narrative
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA
45
narrative
Annual Report 2018
“A compliance-driven annual report dressed as a strategy story — useful as a counter-example of how regulator-mandated structure crushes Storymakers narrative, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA opening — first five pages contain zero stakes-setting; the strategic narrative does not begin until ~p.21 ('How we create value')
45
narrative
Ipsos Global Health Service Monitor 2023 WEB
“A well-organized survey data report, not a Storymakers deck — use the section scaffolding and THE HEADLINES pattern as a navigational example, but it is an anti-example of action titling and has no closing argument.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' act: the deck ends in appendix + methodology + corporate slide (p.30–p.45) with zero synthesis
45
narrative
Everest Group RCM Operations
“A reprinted analyst-report vendor profile with one good action title (p.4) and six dead topic-label slides — useful as a negative example for Storymakers training on action titles and missing closes, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Cognizant profile (page N of 6)' slides (p.5–p.10) are a topic dump with zero insight-bearing titles — the reader cannot scan and know what each page claims
42
narrative
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
38
narrative
An Introduction to Our Group Oct 2025
“A polished corporate capabilities brochure, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a cautionary example of how pillar dividers and proud proof points cannot substitute for a thesis, complication, and recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA: the deck never names a business complication a reader should care about — it only asserts capability