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 7 / 16
62
narrative
US Credit Card Issuer Performance 1Q 2023
“A competent McKinsey quarterly data brief with a strong answer-first opening and well-titled analytical charts, but it diagnoses without prescribing and trails off into valuation tables — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles and exec-summary craft, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on P/B ratio tables (p.35-37) with zero recommendation, next steps, or implication for issuers
62
narrative
Taking Action on Nature Webinar
“A solid analytical webinar deck with quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the thesis behind front-matter and ends in a tools reference + 'Thank you' instead of a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of declarative chart titles, not of full SCQA structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — closes on 'Thank you!' (p.15) after a tools dump
62
narrative
Surveyed nurses consider leaving direct patient care at elevated rates
“A well-titled analytical research brief with a strong opening hook but no real recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for SCQA story arc.”
↓ Closing is effectively absent — p.11's one-sentence recommendation is generic and disclaimer-styled, p.12 is bios
62
narrative
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
62
narrative
New-business building in 2022: Driving growth in volatile times
“A well-quantified McKinsey survey readout with disciplined action titles but no resolution — use it as a teaching example for declarative numeric titles, not for narrative arc or closes.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on p.12 description, then acknowledgments (p.13)
62
narrative
MTA Financial Impact COVID-19
“A methodologically rigorous McKinsey forecast deck with strong precedent framing and a MECE revenue/cost spine, but it buries the $8.5B answer until p.33 and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for scenario analysis structure, not for Storymakers opening or action-title craft.”
↓ Buries the answer: the $8.5B total impact does not appear until p.33 of 38; opening is two disclaimers + cover + TOC with no executive summary
62
narrative
IIF/McKinsey Cyber Resilience Survey
“A competent McKinsey survey deck with strong action titles in the diagnosis section but a buried thesis and a collapsed ending — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and quantified callouts, not as a model of full SCQA narrative architecture.”
↓ First 5 slides are all front matter and methodology; the thesis is buried — by p.5 a reader still doesn't know what the deck argues
62
narrative
Global Gas Outlook 2050
“Solid analytical brief with strong quantified mid-deck titles, but it is a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of action-title writing on data slides, not as a model for full story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.6 then dumps into model methodology and a credits slide
62
narrative
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
62
narrative
Digital Luxury Experience
“A solid mid-tier consulting deck with a clean three-pillar frame and strong analytical titles in the Experience section, but it opens slowly, under-delivers on Enterprise/E-future, and closes without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the middle, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the first five pages — the thesis is deferred until p.6 and never crisply stated
62
narrative
Battery materials demand and supply perspective
“A competent McKinsey market-perspective deck with strong quantified action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens without a thesis and closes on 'unknowns remain' plus a generic 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.4–9), not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.11 is titled 'Conclusion' — a topic label, not an action title — and offers no recommendation or next step
62
narrative
Good as Gold: Resilience and Continued Attractiveness of the Global K-12 Sector
“A solid narrowing-funnel thought-leadership piece with mostly good action titles and a clean 3-pillar structure, but it buries the recommendation under a 9-slide identically-titled data dump — use the p.3-22 analytical build as a teaching example, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides (p.26-34) with the literally identical title 'Overall growth in the premium segment…(X of 9)' — the single biggest narrative failure, forcing the reader to do all the synthesis
62
narrative
malcolm barr jp morgan
“A competent analyst-style inflation primer with a sharp opening question and an early answer, but with no MECE pillars and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of lead-with-the-answer on p.2, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide: deck ends on a tangential question (p.19) and rolls straight into 3 Disclosures pages (p.20–22)
62
narrative
529 cpe
“A polished JPMorgan client-education reference deck with a solid analytical middle but a weak narrative frame — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and comparison tables, not for opening, closing, or signposting a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on disclosures (p.43-44) and a branded product page (p.45), with no 'so what should you do Monday' synthesis
62
narrative
250115 ucb company presentation jpm
“A competent investor-day narrative with clean two-pillar structure and a memorable 'Decade+' through-line, but it skips the complication act and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers action-title or SCQA model.”
↓ No upfront thesis or stakes — the first 3 slides (cover, disclaimer, vision) delay the actual investment story until p.5
62
narrative
250114 FRE prsn JPM SFO 0
“A competent investor-day narrative with a strong, memorable close but a context-heavy opening and missing complication act — useful as an example of declarative action titles and a portable closing equation, not as a model of full S-C-A-R structure.”
↓ No explicit 'complication' slide — the deck never states the tension or why-now that justifies the strategic reset
62
narrative
20250114 bayer handout jpm 2025
“A solid investor-relations handout with strong asset-level action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches headline discipline more than narrative architecture — use individual slides (p.7, p.10, p.13) as title-craft references, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the LoE transition (the actual investor tension) is acknowledged only in the closing title, never framed up front
62
narrative
2022 asset wealth management investor day
“A solid investor-day analytical build with a memorable five-pillar spine, but it skips the complication act and ends on KPIs rather than a commitment — use p.7-11 as a teaching example of MECE pillar structure, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'we're growing' (p.3-4) straight to 'here's how we'll keep growing' (p.5+) without naming the threat
62
narrative
2020 cib investor day
“A textbook investor-day deck with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts but no SCQA tension and no synthesis close — use slides 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 34, 35 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p18, p19, p20) reuse essentially the same action title about «continuity and completeness in coverage» — a tell that the argument was not decomposed MECE before titling
62
narrative
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
62
narrative
Ipsos Global Advisor Earth Day 2023 Full Report WEB
“A competent Ipsos research tour with above-average action titles and pillar dividers, but it ends in a methodology-and-thank-you whimper with no recommendation — use the middle title craft as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on p.44 "THANK YOU" and p.45 "ABOUT IPSOS" with zero so-what
62
narrative
Global Employee Survey – Key findings and implications for ICMIF
“A competent research-findings deck with strong mid-section action titles but a methodology-heavy opening and a non-committal close — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 6 slides on methodology before stating any insight — the thesis should lead, not follow the demographics
62
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2024
“A disciplined creditor/IR information pack with strong answer-first framing and good action titles in the performance section, but it dumps into footnotes with no resolution and loses title discipline in the risk chapter — usable as a pillar-structure exemplar, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.25 Sustainability and falls straight into footnotes/disclaimers (p.26–29)
62
narrative
1100 Aircastle
“A competent investor-relations factbook with a thesis bookend and a few strong industry-trend titles, but a MECE-less middle and topic-label financials make it a cautionary Storymakers example rather than an exemplar — use pp.20-22 as a teaching moment on directional titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the investor's worry (leverage? cyclicality? AAM disruption?) so the analytical build has nothing to resolve.