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 10 / 31
68
opening
Rise of Agentic AI Report
“A well-structured research report with solid MECE pillar dividers and strong data titles, but weakened by 20+ quote/filler slides that reuse the report title as a headline and a 25-slide firm-marketing tail that buries the client imperative — use its section architecture (pp 16/22/46/60/68) as a teaching example, not its openings or its close.”
↓ Roughly 1-in-5 slides use 'Rise of agentic AI: How trust is the key to human-AI collaboration' as the headline (quote and transition pages), abdicating the action-title discipline and forcing the callout to carry the argument
68
opening
Tested, Trusted, Transformed An exploration of the Corporate Affairs Function and its Leaders
“A competently structured research report with a memorable title device and a strong Five Maxims close, but titles carry topics not insights and the middle lacks narrative tension — use the bookend thesis and Five Maxims as teaching examples, not the interior title discipline.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly questions or topic labels rather than insights (p.9, p.11, p.13, p.14, p.25) — a reader skimming the title stream cannot reconstruct the argument
68
opening
European Banking Barometer 2015
“A competently written industry barometer with strong per-slide action titles and a tight three-message exec summary, but it buries no recommendation and ends on 'Contacts' — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles and connector-title chaining, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or implications slide — the deck ends on p44 data and then 'Contacts'/'Appendix', with zero call-to-action
68
opening
Pulse of Fintech H1 2021
“A well-organized analytical reference report with strong stat-led titles in its core, but it is a market-data digest rather than a Storymakers deck — use its action titles and stat-led section dividers as a teaching example, not its overall structure or its non-existent close.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.66 data table then About/Contacts; zero 'so what should investors/operators do' slide
68
opening
Covid 19: Briefing Materials
“A high-quality McKinsey briefing document with strong analytical craftsmanship and action-title discipline, but structurally a report not a story — useful as a teaching example for slide-level writing and quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Recommendation is buried at p.41-42 and limited to 'operating-model speed' — too narrow relative to the humanitarian, economic, and operational problems framed earlier
68
opening
Copernicus Market report
“A meticulously quantified, MECE-by-sector EU market study with strong evidence but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of consistent sectoral templates and metric discipline, not of Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, synthesis, or call-to-action - the deck stops at Security case studies and slides into appendix (pp. 156-164).
68
opening
Southeast Asia’s digital consumers: A new stage of evolution
“A well-resourced thought-leadership report with a real S->C->A->R spine and many strong metric-anchored action titles, but the diluted opening, sprawling analytical middle and trailing close keep it as a solid B+ Storymakers exemplar rather than a top-tier one - useful as a teaching example for action-titles and pillar dividers, less so for opening/closing discipline.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Introduction' (pp 6-8) waste the opening real estate after a strong p5 hook
68
opening
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
68
opening
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“A well-structured BCG x Tencent market study with exemplary quantified action titles in its analytical spine, but it loses Storymakers discipline exactly where it matters most - the recommendation titles go topic-label and the deck ends in 'Thank you'; use the middle (p.4-28) as a teaching example of action-title craft, not the closing.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.43-45) are topic labels, not insights - the deck teaches action titles for 40 pages then abandons them at the punchline
68
opening
Perspectives on WMATA's ridership
“A competent analytical build-up that diagnoses the ridership problem well but ends on a question instead of an answer — useful as a teaching example of retrospective diagnosis and action titles, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation act: p.27 'What does this all mean for WMATA's ridership?' is the final content slide and it asks rather than answers
68
opening
April Macro Brief: Special edition Tariff distress
“A strong analytical brief with insight-bearing titles and clean MECE spine, but the recommendation is compressed and generic - use the tariff analysis (p.12-19, p.22-25, p.36) as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not the resolution arc.”
↓ Recommendation is compressed into p.38-40 and reads as bolt-on consulting boilerplate ('resiliency', 'scenario planning', 'productivity') rather than tariff-specific moves earned by the preceding 30 slides of analysis
68
opening
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
68
opening
Homeowner availability study
“A competent regulatory study with an excellent action-title stretch in section 04 and clean quantitative anchoring throughout, but it opens with topic labels and closes with 'considerations' instead of a recommendation — use the p.13–p.33 sequence as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.38–42 deliver 'KEY TAKEAWAYS' and four flavors of 'CONSIDERATIONS' but never say what Colorado should do
68
opening
COVID-19 BCG Perspectives Publication #5 with a focus on Revamping Organizations for the New Reality
“A hybrid briefing/publication with a strong analytical spine but no resolution act — use the economic-scenarios section (p.28-35) as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends at p.38 and drops straight into appendix (p.39-42), disclaimer (p.44), and contact (p.45)
68
opening
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“Solid analytical build with a genuinely strong tension hook on p.8, but the recommendation is under-developed and the close fades into annex — use the paradox framing and country-benchmark sequence as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slide p.22 is advisory-but-vague; no explicit 'what to do Monday morning' recommendation list
68
opening
Customer Service Excellence 2022
“A competent Deloitte research report with a strong executive summary and several declarative insight titles, but it dissolves into topic-labelled deep-dives and has no recommendation slide — use slides 5-6, 15 and 24 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide before the team bio — closing (p.27-28) is two 'Deep-dive' appendix-style pages followed by 'Who we are'
68
opening
Deloitte Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2022
“A competently-titled, MECE-organized thought-leadership survey deck that teaches strong action-title and callout discipline but diffuses its opening across four slides and buries its recommendations under a generic triple-header — use the per-slide titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Four-slide executive summary (p.2-5) dilutes the opening — the thesis should land on one slide
68
opening
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
68
opening
What The Future Wellness
“An editorial foresight publication with a strong narrative hook and one clean MECE block ('Four tensions'), but it withholds its thesis and closes without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of stat-anchored hooks and tension framing, not of action-titled SCQA structure.”
↓ Titles are predominantly interrogative topic labels rather than declarative insights ('How does diet impact wellness?' p.12, 'How often do people see a doctor?' p.22) — readers must extract the takeaway themselves
68
opening
Presentation Half Year Results 260723 ENG FINAL VERSION
“A competent corporate earnings deck with disciplined callouts and several strong action titles, but its three-act structure is a reporting template rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for callout and action-title patterns on data slides, not as an exemplar of pillared storytelling.”
↓ Section dividers are categorical buckets, not strategic pillars — Financials/Business/Outlook is the default earnings template, not a MECE argument
68
opening
Ipsos AI Monitor 2024 final APAC
“A well-organized syndicated research monitor with one strong thesis hook (slide 2) and clean MECE pillars, but body titles are raw survey questions and the deck ends in methodology with no recommendation — use it as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 30 of ~36 content slides use raw survey-question text as titles instead of declarative insights (e.g., p.20, p.23, p.28, p.34)
68
opening
Introduction to Ipsos May 2024
“A competent corporate capabilities deck with good action titles and a quantified spine, but it's a company tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for title craft, not as an exemplar of SCQA structure or a strong close.”
↓ Duplicate titles on p.10 and p.11 («OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA» / «...THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA») — an editing miss that fractures the strategy section
68
opening
what worries the world december 2024
“A disciplined recurring data tracker with strong callout writing and clean pillar structure, but undermined by topic-label titles and no closing synthesis — use it as an example of how to write quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Title 'Current Economic Situation' appears on 9 consecutive slides (p.35–46) with no country or finding to differentiate them — readers cannot scan the section
68
opening
People&ClimateChange2025
“A competently reported syndicated-research deck with flashes of strong action-title writing but a buried recommendation and a 40-slide country-data tail — use the p.9/p.15/p.26 insights as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is buried: the only prescriptive slide (p.25 'Three things to bring consumers along') sits mid-deck with no visual weight or escalation