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
374 matching · page 12 / 16
55
opening
ey digital survey shaping the new normal
“A competent, well-titled regional-survey topic dump with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not of story structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation — deck ends on a data slide (p41) and a 'Contact us' (p42), with zero 'so what' for the reader
55
opening
ey people leaders forum 2025 presentations day1
“A disciplined, MECE-structured keynote with strong metric-bearing analytical titles, but it opens slowly and ends in a dinner invitation rather than a recommendation — use the three-pillar architecture and p.20-p.22 titles as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — closing flow p.28→p.29→p.30 dissolves into 'Seated dinner and networking'
55
opening
full report 1651767473 1215260173
“A solid analytical industry report with credible numbers and case studies, but structurally a four-pillar topic loop rather than a Storymakers narrative — usable as an example of metric-driven action titles, not as a model of arc, opening, or closing.”
↓ Four slides titled identically 'Key recommendations for marketers' (p.13, 17, 24, 29) — readers cannot tell pillars apart from the title alone
55
opening
Aspen Presentation GS Emerging Leaders Conference
“An investor-conference company story with solid quantified proof points but no thesis upfront and no ask at the end — useful as an example of case-study framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide — reader has to infer the investment argument from scattered data points across p.3-4
55
opening
Goldman Sachs Sixteenth Annual ANZ Investment Forum Presentation
“A competent corporate IR/forum overview with clean section architecture but topic-label titles in the segments block, no complication, and an appendix that duplicates the main narrative — useful as an example of MECE structure and occasional declarative financial titles, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Operating-group section uses the segment name as the slide title 3-4 times each (slides 28-36 and again 63-66) — readers can't tell pages apart by title alone
55
opening
ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en
“A tight, well-titled analytical comparison deck (EA vs US tariff impact) that exemplifies strong declarative action titles but lacks SCQA framing on the bookends — use its action-title discipline as the teaching example, not its overall narrative scaffolding.”
↓ No explicit thesis/executive-summary slide in the opening — the reader must assemble the argument from p.2 onward
55
opening
e03d5b95 7f97 45dd 967f 891c3bf12198
“A weekly Goldman market-reference pamphlet dressed as a deck — useful as a data artifact but a poor Storymakers exemplar: it opens a thesis, drops it, and ends in disclaimers.”
↓ Opening thesis on passive ownership is dropped after p.5 and never resolved — the deck forgets its own question
55
opening
2019 cb investor day ba56d0e8
“A polished investor-day capabilities deck with strong quantitative titles but no real tension or resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names a problem, competitor threat, or 'so what changes' moment
55
opening
250114 FRE prsn JPM SFO 0
“A competent investor-day narrative with a strong, memorable close but a context-heavy opening and missing complication act — useful as an example of declarative action titles and a portable closing equation, not as a model of full S-C-A-R structure.”
↓ No explicit 'complication' slide — the deck never states the tension or why-now that justifies the strategic reset
55
opening
250115 ucb company presentation jpm
“A competent investor-day narrative with clean two-pillar structure and a memorable 'Decade+' through-line, but it skips the complication act and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers action-title or SCQA model.”
↓ No upfront thesis or stakes — the first 3 slides (cover, disclaimer, vision) delay the actual investment story until p.5
55
opening
2024 usb barclays presentation conference deck
“A competent investor-conference positioning deck with solid per-slide craft but no story arc — useful as a reference for action titles and quantitative callouts on specific slides (pp. 6, 8, 9, 13, 18), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication or thesis in the opening — pp. 3-7 establish scale but never frame a question the deck answers
55
opening
Fearon DBConference 2019
“A competent investor/IR deck with strong action-title discipline and a real arc, but it buries the thesis 20 slides in and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example of action-title writing and slide-chaining, not of Storymakers opening/closing craft.”
↓ Thesis deferred ~20 pages — p.21 'Eaton is well positioned to take advantage of these growth trends' should be near the front, not two-thirds in
55
opening
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
55
opening
id18 utilizing technology
“A solid analytical investor-day deck with quantified action titles in the IT-spend and risk pillars, but weak opening, a repetitive client-journey middle, and no synthesized close — use the p.7-12 and p.42-43 sequences as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening (p.1-6) buries the thesis — no stakes, no SCQA setup, just cover + disclaimer + generic banner
52
opening
2023 SEA Hospital Insights Survey Findings Summary materials
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative titles and MECE-ish themes, but no recommendation arc — use the title-writing and section discipline as a teaching example, not the narrative structure.”
↓ No synthesis or recommendation slide — the deck ends on a finding (p.40) and jumps to L.E.K. self-promo
52
opening
2022 Environmental, Social, Governance Report
“A disciplined but title-flat ESG compliance report with clean pillar architecture and real metrics buried in callouts; useful as a teaching example of MECE section dividers, but a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, and closing call-to-action.”
↓ Zero action titles in 48 narrative pages — every headline is a noun phrase ('TALENT DEVELOPMENT', 'PAY PRACTICES & PAY EQUITY', 'HUMAN RIGHTS') so a reader skimming titles learns the agenda but no insights
52
opening
Global Shared Services 2017 Survey Report
“A data-rich survey report with good insights trapped in the callouts — useful as a teaching case for how topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act can flatten strong evidence into a 'results walkthrough', not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Operations and governance' is reused verbatim across p.9–12 with zero differentiation
52
opening
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
50
opening
European Distressed Credit Watch List
“A competently produced reference catalogue of distressed European credits with strong market-context data on the front end, but it abandons narrative craft at the case-study section and has no close — useful as a teaching example of what 'analytical dump with no resolution' looks like, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends mid-catalogue at p.39 (Winoa) then jumps to contacts
50
opening
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
50
opening
Out @ Work Barometer
“A competently titled survey readout with strong individual insight slides (especially the p.11 paradox) but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends at p.13 on a diagnosis ('missing out on talent')
50
opening
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
50
opening
2024 US CEO Outlook Pulse Survey
“A survey-results pulse report dressed as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on an ESG data point (p.10) and a disclaimer (p.11) with zero recommendations, implications, or call to action
50
opening
The Quantum Technology Monitor December 2020
“A competent state-of-the-market monitor with strong declarative analytical titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — use the middle slides as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis on slides 1-3 — the reader has to wait until p.4 to learn the deck's point of view