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
737 matching · page 7 / 31
68
narrative
CO2 Emissions Report
“A solid analytical benchmark report with a strong opening thesis and quantified stakes, undermined by a near-total absence of slide-level action titles and a flat 'Get in touch' close — useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline and OEM-benchmark structure, but a cautionary case for title craft.”
↓ Title repetition: ~75% of slides recycle the report tagline as the action title, forcing insight into callouts and breaking the Storymakers principle of 'read the titles, get the story'
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
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
Morgan Stanley Investor Presentation
“A competent IR deck with a clean three-pillar strategy spine but a missing Complication and a drifting close — use p.13-15 as a teaching example of pillared recommendation, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No explicit Complication: the deck asserts strength but never frames the tension (rate environment, student-loan policy risk, federal competition) the strategy is meant to resolve
68
narrative
160316 BBVA MS Conference tcm927 569522
“A competently structured investor-conference deck with a real SCQA spine and disciplined geography slides, but it under-delivers on opening hook and closing recommendation — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers closing-act model.”
↓ p.29 'Conclusions' is a label, not a recommendation — no quantified ask, no memorable close
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
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
“A rigorous DECC-commissioned diagnostic with answer-first framing and quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the gap' instead of 'here is what to do' — use pages 4, 12, 15, and 28 as Storymakers exemplars of metric-led titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on a conditional frame (p.61 'What you would need to believe...') and dissolves into appendix
68
narrative
Perspective on Tower & Fiber
“A competent McKinsey 'perspective' brief with strong stakes-setting and mostly declarative titles, but it ends on a menu instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of opening discipline, not as a Storymakers exemplar of resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7 ends on "several strategic plays available," which is a menu, not a verdict.
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
Global Health Partnerships Stop TB
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic-and-design deck with strong analytical action titles inside each chapter, but structurally a topic dump organized by team rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for KPI-tree slides (p.19-23) and pull-quote callouts, not for overall arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening flows straight from context (p.3) into approach/phasing (p.5) without telling the audience the answer
68
narrative
European Consumer Sentiment Survey: How current events in Europe are shaping consumer behavior
“A textbook McKinsey consumer-research deck with a strong opening and disciplined three-pillar MECE spine, but it stops at analysis — use it as an exemplar for action titles and pillar structure, not for the full Storymakers S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on data slides (p38–p39 splurge intent) and a blank McKinsey logo (p40), with no 'implications for retailers/brands' or call to action
68
narrative
A future that works: AI, Automation, employment, and productivity
“A keynote-style thought-leadership deck with strong analytical chapter (p.13-18) but a missing Resolution act — use the middle as a Storymakers exemplar of action-titled analysis, not as a model for narrative close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closing slide p.22 'some real challenges to address' re-states the problem instead of resolving it
68
narrative
L.E.K. ASC Insights Study MedTech Publication Deck
“Lead-gen publication deck with unusually strong action titles and a clean analytical middle, but a hollow recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ p.16 'framework_other' poses questions instead of answering them — the deck stops one slide short of a recommendation
68
narrative
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
68
narrative
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
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
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
68
narrative
karen ward isfw
“A competent house-view market outlook with strong declarative chart titles but a flat pillar structure and a marketing-style close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ 'Big themes' (p.2, p.11) is a topic label where the most important slides should carry the sharpest action titles
68
narrative
firm overview
“A polished investor-day overview with textbook action-title craft on the financial slides, but it ends in restatement rather than resolution — use p.6-14 as a teaching example of headline writing, not the deck's overall narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slide p.16 restates the thesis instead of resolving with a recommendation, watchlist, or commitment metrics — the deck ends on reassurance, not action
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 corporate investment bank investor day
“A polished investor-day deck with exemplary action-title discipline and number-anchored proof, but it pitches four parallel business cases rather than telling one SCQA story — use slides 3-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No real Complication — the deck never names a threat, gap, or risk that the strategy resolves; even 'rate headwinds' (p.12) and 'deposit margin compression' (p.29) are framed as already-overcome
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
Investor Day Presentation 140623 FINAL
“A disciplined, well-structured investor-relations deck with strong metric-anchored action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis at the open and dissolves into a topic label and dial-in numbers at the close — useful as a teaching example for the Growth Plan vertical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Opening defers the thesis: takes through p7 to land 'Raison d'Être' and through p17 to articulate the client-trust proof point — no answer-first slide in the first three pages.