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 9 / 31
68
narrative
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
68
narrative
Navigating uncertain skies Commercial Aerospace Insight Report
“A solid industry-outlook report with quantified evidence and parallel recommendations, but the recommend-before-diagnose sequencing and absent closing CTA make it a better teaching example for action-title writing than for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendations (p.13–15) precede the deeper diagnostic of costs, production, and risk (p.18–22), inverting the analyze→recommend order
68
narrative
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
68
narrative
Level Up: Elevate Your Business With a Platform Strategy
“A competently-structured thought-leadership deck with strong data-backed titles in the middle but a soft open and a closing that trails into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 2.1 pp margin advantage (p.3 callout) should be slide 1's headline, not a sub-bullet behind a definition
68
narrative
January Macro Brief
“A strong analytical brief with exemplary declarative action titles and well-placed recommendations, but it stops short of being a Storymakers exemplar because it never closes the loop — use p.5/p.13/p.24 as title-writing teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on trend #10 (p.40) then a team bio (p.41) with no 'what to do first' or consolidated action slide
68
narrative
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
68
narrative
Future-proof ad sales: The new transformation imperative
“Competent two-act transformation thesis with quantified stakes and a clear protect-now/pivot-next spine, but topic-label titles and bundled recommendations keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.11-15 as a pillar-divider teaching case, not the titling.”
↓ Figure-label titles like p.6 "FIGURE 2: Digital versus non-digital advertising spend" and p.8's 60-word run-on title waste prime real estate
68
narrative
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
68
narrative
Embracing the Loyalty Equation
“A well-researched Accenture POV with a strong central framework but a soft opening, repeated titles, and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of framework-anchored analysis, not of Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Duplicate generic action titles: 'The way forward' appears on both p.17 and p.21, signaling the recommendation section was not sharpened
68
narrative
Conquering the next value frontier in private equity
“A competent market-shaping POV with strong data slides and an early thesis, but the closing recommendations are fragmented and title discipline is uneven — useful as a teaching example for action-title-on-data-slide patterns, not as a whole-deck Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slides 4-8 re-establish context after slide 3 already delivered the headline, diluting momentum in the opening act
68
narrative
Bridging the Skills Gap in the Future Workforce
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear problem→answer→ask spine, but it breaks its own 'three steps' MECE promise and hides insights behind generic chart labels — use p.7, p.20, and p.22 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Missing STEP TWO and STEP THREE dividers — the MECE promise made on p.16 is never kept, so pp.22 and 25 read as a stream rather than parallel pillars
66
narrative
Blurred lines: How FinTech is shaping Financial Services
“A competent, stake-led PwC industry report with a clean numbered spine and several memorable action titles, but the recommendation collapses into a single 'Conclusion' slide after a heavy analytical middle — useful as a teaching example for stake-setting and 'So what?' synthesis, not for landing the ask.”
↓ Resolution act is just two slides (p.29 recommendation + p.30 'Conclusion') after ~22 pages of analysis — the recommendation is buried, not headlined.
66
narrative
The importance of being human in a digital world
“Research-report-style thought-leadership deck with a strong unifying metaphor and a genuine two-pillar MECE spine, but titles recycle section labels instead of carrying per-slide insights — useful as a teaching example of anchor-phrase discipline, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles collapse into section labels — five consecutive slides (p.7, 9, 10, 11, 12) all titled '03 Key research findings' with no per-slide insight, forcing the reader to mine the body for the point
66
narrative
20240220 Barclays FY2023 FI Call Slides
“A competent IR deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified analytical spine, but it lacks a complication act and trails into Q&A without a closing recommendation — use p.3-8 and p.13-14 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends at p.19 rating target, then Q&A/appendix/disclaimer, so the 'so what' never gets restated
66
narrative
Transforming the Industry that transformed the World: 01 Shift to as-a-serice
“A disciplined, template-driven thought-leadership deck with strong per-pillar rhythm but a flat overall arc and no synthesis close - use its section architecture and case-led pillar pattern as a teaching example, not its opening or ending.”
↓ No closing synthesis - deck ends inside pillar #5 (p.29) then jumps to survey-method appendix (p.30), leaving five imperatives un-prioritized and no CTA
65
narrative
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a thesis-first open and a real recommendation close, but the middle is a trend-report dump without MECE pillars - useful as a teaching example for action-title quantification, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No MECE section dividers - slides 4-13 are an undifferentiated industry_trends run with no signposting of where the argument is going
65
narrative
PwC Golden Age index Unlocking a potential $3.5 trillion prize from longer working lives
“A solid analyst-led research report with strong answer-first opening and quantified action titles in the core build, but the recommendation lands mid-deck and the close trails off into benchmark and correlation appendices — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and exec-summary framing, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendation buried at p.25 of 57 with no closing reprise — the deck ends in correlation analysis (p.50) before methodology
65
narrative
thebeatfeb2025 en
“A solid asset-allocation periodical with strong action titles and an answer-first opening, but it fades into bios and disclaimers — use p.4-12 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closes on team bios (p.20-21) and disclaimers — no CTA, no 'so what' slide after the dashboards
65
narrative
Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter
“Solid BCG explanatory brief with a coherent 'leapfrogging' throughline and strong US-China benchmarking, but structured as analytical build-up rather than a Storymakers story — thesis buried, dividers blank, recommendations absent — so use the market-sizing and leapfrogging sections as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the 'leapfrogging' answer doesn't arrive until p.25/26, and there is no upfront thesis slide summarizing the deck's point of view
64
narrative
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
64
narrative
2019 am investor day ba56d0e8
“A competent investor-day strategy showcase with a clear three-pillar spine and quantified proof, but it skips the Complication and fumbles the close — useful as an exemplar of pillar tagging and metric-led titles, not of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never names a problem, threat, or 'why now', so it is proof without provocation
64
narrative
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“A solid BCG operating-model diagnostic with disciplined quantification and peer benchmarks, but it reads as a dense board-report archive rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its diagnosis→recommendation pairing within function sections as a teaching pattern, not its overall opening or closing.”
↓ The recommendation is buried: 22 pages of preamble (team bios on p.13, $5M BCG self-investment on p.8, project phases on p.6) precede the first substantive finding at p.23
64
narrative
Vietnam Logistics
“A competent A&M pitch-style market-opportunity report with strong action titles and a clean answer-first opening, but it buries the tension and has no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles and Cainiao-style precedent use, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.16 analysis, then jumps straight to Contacts and team bios
64
narrative
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight