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
15 matching
78
opening
AI Radar C-Suite Agenda
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with a clean tension pivot and strong action titles, but the middle lacks MECE scaffolding and the recommendation is compressed into one slide — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing and S→C→A hinges, less so for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillar signposting — the middle (pp.10-17) reads as a sequence of 'winners do X' observations rather than a structured framework
78
opening
The new digital edge: Rethinking strategy for the postpandemic era
“A well-titled, data-rich McKinsey survey readout with a clean BLUF opening but a flat complication and a rhetorical rather than prescriptive close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified callouts, not for full-arc storymaking.”
↓ No section dividers or explicit pillar architecture; the three implicit themes (endowment p.8-10, talent/innovation p.11-12, leadership p.13-15) are never named as a MECE frame
78
opening
2023 Deutsche Bank FIG Presentation upload vf
“A competent investor-update deck with a clear thesis, disciplined action titles, and a proper three-beat close — use the opening and closing as Storymakers exemplars, but not the middle, where the Complication is soft and the four-pillar structure announced on p.5 is never used as the body's spine.”
↓ Complication is underdeveloped — p.6 'Strong start into 2023 despite volatile environment' gestures at tension but never frames a real obstacle the strategy must answer
70
opening
Melbourne as a Global Cultural Destination
“A well-organized analytical brief with strong title discipline and a real SCQA spine, but it under-delivers on the resolution — useful as an exemplar of action-titled diagnosis, less so as a model for landing a recommendation.”
↓ Closes on disclaimer + 'Thank you' (p.55-56) instead of an ownable ask or commitment
70
opening
Decarbonization in ports and shipping
“A competent thought-leadership / business-development deck with strong action titles and a clean macro-to-micro context build, but it stops short of a recommendation and pivots to firm credentials — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and SCQA setup, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Self-promotion crowds the narrative: p.2, p.3 and p.11 are credentials/RB-targets slides in a 12-page deck — 25% of the real estate is about the firm, not the client problem
68
opening
The age of AI: Banking’s new reality
“A textbook-MECE consulting report with disciplined pillar structure and good evidence, but action titles default to topic labels and the close fades — use the section architecture as a teaching example, not the title-writing or the landing.”
↓ Action titles often duplicate section names ('Lead with value' x3, 'Close the gap on responsible AI' x2) — the deck tells you the topic but not the insight
68
opening
2019 Global FS Consumer Study DACH
“Solid, disciplined analytical consulting report with a clean MECE five-finding spine and a rare, well-built closing playbook - use the recommendation slides (p25, p31, p41) as action-title exemplars, but not the persona or data sections, where titles regress to topic labels.”
↓ Persona slides (p9, p12, p15, p18) use bare noun titles instead of insights - 'Pioneers', 'Pragmatists' carry no argument by themselves.
68
opening
Infrastructure beyond COVID-19
“A well-titled, metric-rich sectoral reference document whose analytical sections would make a strong Storymakers teaching example for action titles and mini-arcs — but it fails as an argument because it ends on 'Future directions: Waste' instead of a unified national recommendation.”
↓ No overall closing synthesis — the deck terminates on 'Future directions: Waste' (p.187) then a disclaimer, burying the national recommendation that p.6-7 promised
68
opening
20240618 Barclays UK Corporate Bank Deep Dive
“A well-structured three-pillar strategic update with strong MECE scaffolding and quantified titles, but one that buries its thesis in the opening and fades into Q&A at the close — useful as a teaching example for mid-deck pillar construction, not for narrative hook or landing.”
↓ Opening four slides (p.1-4) are context/KPI dashboards with no stated thesis — the 'So what' is delayed to p.10
62
opening
Future of Sales Marketing Executive Perspectives
“Solid BCG executive-perspectives piece with excellent imperative-led action titles and a clean recommendation block, but the 10-slide context run-up, absent MECE dividers, and whimpering close-into-appendix make it a better teaching example for title craft than for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ 10 slides of context (p2-11) before the pivot at p12 — too long a setup for a 22-page executive perspective
62
opening
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
58
opening
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
55
opening
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
55
opening
APAC Hospital Insights 2023
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and clean three-pillar MECE structure, but it ends in firm marketing instead of a recommendation — use sections 2-4 as a teaching example for action titles and pyramid sequencing, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No 'So what?' resolution slide — the deck ends at p.27 (last agenda divider) and jumps straight to firm credentials on p.28-30; no synthesis of implications for healthcare providers, MedTech, or pharma
40
opening
Ipsos Global Views on AI and Disinformation full report
“A well-titled Ipsos data-release deck with solid declarative findings but no SCQA arc or recommendation — useful as an exemplar of headline-stat action titles, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No 'So what?' — deck ends at p.6 with a data point, skipping any recommendation, implication, or next step