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 8 / 31
68
narrative
2023 Ipsos Global Trends Report
“A well-crafted trends report with disciplined action titles and a strong opening hook, but it reads as an encyclopedia of twelve parallel chapters rather than a single argument — useful as a teaching example for chapter-level structure and title craft, not for overall narrative escalation or closing punch.”
↓ Twelve trend chapters of near-identical structure flatten the narrative — there is no escalation or ranking of which trends matter most for the reader
68
narrative
IBV Research Report
“A solid three-pillar research report with the right analytical skeleton and a real recommendations close, but it buries its headline stat, under-uses section dividers, and leans on topic-label titles — teach the pillar structure, not the opening or the titling.”
↓ Headline stat (36% revenue/efficiency lift from analytics-led innovation) is buried on p.5 instead of driving the cover or exec summary
68
narrative
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
68
narrative
2023.05.31 Bernstein Conference
“A disciplined investor-day growth narrative with strong quantified titles but a missing Complication and a soft close — useful as an exemplar of numeric action titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Complication slide — the deck never names the obstacle, competitive threat, or 'why this is hard,' so Situation flows straight to Answer without tension
68
narrative
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Key Insights Report
“A solid evidence-led impact report with strong action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a results readout rather than a Storymakers story — use its titling and pillar structure as an exemplar, not its (absent) opening tension or closing recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a demographic stat (p.23) and 'About Accenture' (p.24) with no recommendation or call-to-action
68
narrative
deutsche bank global consumer conference 2023
“A competent investor-conference deck with quantified callouts and a tidy numbered strategy section, but it reads as a structured update rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use the callout discipline as a reference, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — deck moves context → analysis → recommendation without framing the strategic problem the 8 priorities are solving
68
narrative
Q1 2025 Fixed Income Call
“Competent fixed-income investor update with a disciplined answer-first opening and strong main-body action titles, but it collapses at the close ('Summary and outlook') and leans on a bloated 25-slide appendix — use the p.2-p.14 arc as a teaching example for answer-first sequencing, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Weak close: p.15 'Summary and outlook' is a topic label with no stated outlook, no recommendation, and no memorable takeaway
68
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q3 2023 incl S&P update
“A competent IR/creditor update with strong action titles up front but a topic-dump credit-risk section and no real close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and MECE dividers in the first half, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ Creditor section (p.18–27) abandons action titles for topic labels — 'Current ratings', 'Net balance sheet', 'Derivatives bridge' — losing the insight-bearing voice
68
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2025
“A competent investor/creditor update with a clean answer-first 9-slide narrative and a heavy reference appendix; use p.2-9 as a teaching example of concise IR storytelling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — reader cannot see the pillar structure of the argument
68
narrative
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“Well-architected four-pillar consulting report with a strong SCQA opening but no closing synthesis — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar structure and tension-framing, not for resolution or action-titling discipline.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on a GPS case study (p.43) then jumps to acknowledgments; the four-action framework is never recapped or converted into a call to action
68
narrative
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A solid diagnostic survey deck with strong action-titled middle analysis but a hedged opening and a one-slide recommendation — use p.8-16 as a teaching example of insight titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: p.4-5 'Executive summary' callouts are hedged and don't state the one-line answer; no BLUF in first 3 slides
68
narrative
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
68
narrative
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis
68
narrative
BCG's Guide to Cost and Growth
“A competently argued thought-leadership deck with disciplined numeric action titles and a visible three-act spine, but it buries its recommendation behind a capabilities pitch — use p.3-9 and p.12-16 as a teaching example of statistic-led titling, not the overall close.”
↓ Closing collapses into capability-marketing: p.22 'BCG has deep expertise in cost management' replaces the recommendation slide the arc was building toward
68
narrative
Accenture Tech Vision 2025
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE pillars and strong evidence cadence, but it buries its insights in generic section labels and fades into an appendix instead of landing a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for pillar architecture, not for action titling or closing.”
↓ Duplicated titles ('The Big Picture', 'The Technology', 'What's Next', 'A Portrait of the Future') recur in every section, making the deck unscannable and forcing readers to rely on callouts
68
narrative
2019 Fueling Energy Future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong problem framing and declarative titles, but the recommendation is smeared across too many framework slides and the close is a marketing link — use p.3 and p.15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is diluted across seven consecutive framework slides (p.10-17 all variations of 'wise pivot') with no single climactic 'here is the answer' moment
68
narrative
2017 China Luxury Market Study
“A well-titled analytical market briefing with strong pull-quotes but no prescriptive payoff — use it as a teaching example for action titles and evidence-backed callouts, not for story architecture or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.15 and p.19 hint at brand plays but none crystallize a prescriptive next step
68
narrative
What’s in a (Domain) Name? The $2 Billion Secondary Market for Dot-Com Domains
“A tightly argued market-sizing brief with strong action-title discipline and a clean narrative pivot, but it stops at 'what is true' and never lands 'so what' — use it as a teaching example for headline writing and SCQA hinges, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on a data table (p.16) then 'THANK YOU' (p.18) with no recommendation, implication, or next step
68
narrative
Shaping Future Indian ME
“A polished industry-outlook report with strong sector-level action titles and a clear two-pillar spine, but the recommendation is a single afterthought slide — use the sector deep-dives (p.20–26) and the headroom build (p.10–11, p.27) as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Recommendation reduced to one slide (p.43) with a topic-label title and no prioritization, owner, or sequencing
68
narrative
Mastering Marketing Measurement
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles in its benchmark half, but the narrative doubles back on itself and closes on a soft 'getting started' frame rather than a sharp recommendation - use pp.10-15 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Structural redundancy: the six steps are introduced on pp.4-8 and then re-litigated on pp.9-15 without a clear distinction between 'what leaders do' and 'why it works'
68
narrative
Gen Z Attitudes Toward Higher Education
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong action titles and one good transition hinge, but flat structure and a soft landing make it a title-craft exemplar rather than a full Storymakers model.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — the 11 analytical slides read as a flat sequence rather than grouped chapters
68
narrative
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
68
narrative
Digitizing Make in India Report 2024
“A disciplined sector-intelligence report with exemplary parallel sub-structure inside Section 02, but it reads like an analytical reference manual rather than a Storymakers narrative — use the sunrise-sector template as a teaching example for MECE sub-pillars, not as a model for opening or closing a deck.”
↓ No answer-first opening: two 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' pages (pp. 5-6) use the label as the title instead of stating the thesis, and the first insight-bearing action title doesn't appear until p. 10.
68
narrative
2025 Carbon Survey Report
“A competent survey-results deck with strong declarative titles and a numeric spine, but it stalls as a Storymakers exemplar because it never resolves - use pages 2, 4, 6, 8 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No resolution act - the deck ends on p.10 with a descriptive finding and no explicit recommendation or call to action