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
635 matching · page 11 / 27
62
opening
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
62
opening
Strategy at the Pace of Technology
“Solid analytical Accenture build with a textbook two-pillar MECE structure and a real recommendation slide, but a flabby front matter and a closing-divider whimper keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use p.15-22 as the teaching example for pillar dividers, not the opening or close.”
↓ Two slides (p.4, p.6) carry the identical deck-title 'Strategy at the pace of technology' as their action title - wasted real estate
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
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
62
opening
Investor Perspectives Q1 2023
“Competent BCG research-pulse deck with a strong analytical middle and quantified action titles, but no recommendation, no MECE pillars, and a seven-slide appendix dump for a close — use p6/p9/p15 as teaching examples of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p26 is just contact info, so the deck answers «what do investors think» but never «what should the reader do about it»
62
opening
US Natural Gas Future Standalone
“Strong analytical build with disciplined action titles and well-named pillars, but the arc sequences scenarios before constraints and closes with a restatement rather than a recommendation — use it as a Storymakers exemplar for title craft and pillar labeling, not for SCQA sequencing or endings.”
↓ Section order inverts SCQA: Scenarios (p16-18) come before Constraints (p19-21), so the 'question' is posed before the complication that makes it urgent
62
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Indonesia
“A competent single-chapter country brief with strong action titles and clean one-message slides, but it is analytical reporting rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative structure or closing.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends on p.7 with a negative funding stat and no recommendation, implication, or 'where to play' call to action
62
opening
Everest Group Retail Services
“A reprinted analyst-badge marketing asset, not a Storymakers deck — useful only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and appendix-as-closer; do not use as an exemplar.”
↓ Pages 5-11 are labelled only «Cognizant profile (page X of 7)» — seven consecutive topic-label titles with no insight, the single worst Storymakers violation in the deck.
62
opening
Deloitte 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world
“A well-architected research-trends deck with genuine MECE pillars and dense data, but it teaches as a framework lookbook rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its section structure as a model and its title writing as a counter-example.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels reused across 2-3 consecutive slides (e.g., 'Negotiating worker data' p.21-23, 'Activating the future of workplace' p.17-19) — readers can't skim the deck
62
opening
EY Work Reimagined 2022 Survey
“A competently sequenced survey-findings deck with strong analytical action titles but a weak recommendation and synthesis - use the middle (p.5-p.10) as a teaching example of title-writing, not the opening or close.”
↓ Recommendation slide p.11 is phrased as a question instead of a declarative ask, diluting the punch of the deck's 'so what'
62
opening
GenAI wealth asset management
“A competent survey-highlights report with strong per-slide action titles and a coherent analytical middle, but it's not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.7–19 to teach stat-led action titles, not the overall structure, which lacks a complication, named pillars, and a closing recommendation.”
↓ Five separate 'Contents' slides (p.2, p.4, p.6, p.20, p.23) with no pillar labels act as filler dividers rather than MECE signposts
62
opening
Navigating Disruption Financial Services
“A well-researched case-study compendium with disciplined 'from X to Y' action titles, but it opens with methodology and closes without a recommendation — use the case-study slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No synthesis slide — after 8 cases (p.9-16) there is no cross-case pattern, scorecard, or 'what this means for incumbents'
62
opening
Education: 2021 Deal Round-up and Trends to Watch Out For in 2022
“A competent analytical data round-up with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it is a briefing not a story — missing thesis, missing synthesis, and ending on a contact card instead of a recommendation; use slides 2, 4, 10, 13 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.15 data + p.16 'Connect with us' — there is no recommendation, no 'what to watch in 2022' payoff despite the title promising it
62
opening
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
62
opening
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
62
opening
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.
62
opening
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
62
opening
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
62
opening
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
62
opening
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
62
opening
2019 Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear protagonist (Dynamics) and largely declarative titles, but the soft complication, over-reliance on quote slides, and uneven pillar signposting make it a useful exemplar for action-title craft — not for full Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Heavy reliance on quote_slides (p.3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20 — seven of 22 pages) substitutes voice-of-expert for analytical synthesis
62
opening
Barriers to FinTech innovation in the Netherlands
“Competent Roland Berger policy deck with clear three-act scaffolding and mostly declarative titles, but it under-builds the tension and fades into appendix instead of landing a call to action — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing structure.”
↓ No synthesis or call-to-action slide before the appendix — the deck ends mid-thought at p.31 and dumps 10 supporting slides
62
opening
The overall positive sentiment was also reflected in the supplier valuation levels that still trade above their long-ter
“Strong analytical build-up and disciplined 5-pillar challenge section, but the recommendation is buried until p60 and the deck tapers into a contact slide — use sections 1 and 3 as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Buries the recommendation — 'answer-first' is violated at deck level: the 8-element transformation framework only appears at p60/86 and the executive summary on p3-4 doesn't preview it
62
opening
6th ICO STO Report Strategic
“A competent short market-study deck with above-average action titles, but it ends on a credentials pitch instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of strong data-slide titling, weak as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ Closes on a service pitch (p.11) + 'Thank you!' (p.12) with no synthesized recommendation or 'so what' for the reader