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
726 matching · page 8 / 31
68
narrative
NIELSEN black audiences
“A well-organized industry/marketing report with disciplined MECE pillars and strong hook stats, but the parallel-survey structure and three identical recommendation titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar of answer-first narrative.”
↓ Three recommendation slides share the identical title 'Opportunities to connect' — a missed chance to state the pillar-specific insight in the title
68
narrative
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
68
narrative
OP 2020 03 17 morgan stanley european financials conference 2020 santander executive chairmans presentation only availab
“A solid investor-conference deck with strong quantified titles and a clear track-record-to-forward-plan structure, but it leaves the COVID tension unresolved and closes weakly — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles in financial sections, not for full narrative arc.”
↓ COVID-19 context (p.3) is introduced then dropped — never reconciled with the mid-term EPS goal on p.23, leaving the central tension unresolved
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
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing
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
Reinventing Construction Higher Productivity
“A solid MGI extract with strong quantified opening and clean action-title style, but repeated CONTENTS dividers and a hedged close make it a better teaching example for title-writing than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Three identical 'CONTENTS' slides (p.2, p.7, p.11) substitute for proper pillared dividers and break narrative momentum
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
Affordable Housing Challenge Blueprint
“A well-framed analytical deck with a clean MECE spine and quantified body slides, but it ends with a 'Thank you' instead of a recommendation and trails into a disorganized appendix — use the opening and four-lever build-up as a Storymakers exemplar, not the close.”
↓ Closing collapse: 'Thank you!' on p.35 is followed by 14 pages of appendix-style content (p.36-49) with no synthesis 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
Pivoting to a High Quality Growth of Clinical Trials in China PharmaDJ x L.E.K. Clinical Development Report
“A competent, survey-driven thought-leadership report with a clear four-pillar spine and numerate titles, but it builds analytically and then fails to land — use its Act 1 setup (pp.3, 5-12) as a teaching example of thesis-plus-proof, not its resolution.”
↓ Resolution act is effectively one slide (p.48) — no prioritized recommendations, no 'so what for pharma X' translation, and no decision framework.
68
narrative
KPMG global tech report: Financial services insights
“A competently structured three-pillar thought-leadership report with a clean Analyze→Recommend rhythm, but more thematic survey than SCQA story — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline, not of opening/closing craft.”
↓ No explicit complication slide — p.4 lists findings but does not crystallize the tension that motivates the report
68
narrative
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements
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
cb product fraud mitigation success
“A short, competent client-facing teaser with one strong proof point but a buried lede and a generic close — usable as a Storymakers example of action titles, not of arc construction.”
↓ Answer-first violated: the headline result on p.2 should lead, not follow the threat slide on p.1
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 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
2020 cb investor day
“A polished, on-message investor-day deck with disciplined action titles and a clean thematic spine, but it is a confidence narrative rather than a Storymakers SCQA arc — useful as an exemplar of title discipline and pillar sequencing, not as a model for tension-and-resolution storytelling.”
↓ No real Complication/tension — every slide reassures ('strong', 'well-positioned', 'substantial'), so the narrative lacks the SCQA pivot that would earn the resolution
68
narrative
Ipsos Public Trust in AI
“Solid analytical public-opinion deck with respectable action titles and a clean pillar structure, but it reads as a research readout rather than a recommendation-led Storymakers exemplar — use the mid-deck insight titles as a teaching reference, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Duplicate title 'Challenges and opportunities for employers' on p.20 and p.21 signals a topic-dump rather than a built argument