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 12 / 27
62
opening
COVID-19: Briefing Note
“A textbook example of MECE pillar architecture (the 5 Horizons) wrapped around a weak opening label and a closing that trails into appendix dashboards — use it to teach framework structure and section dividers, not narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses: ends with regional KPI dashboards (p51-54) and References rather than a recommendation or so-what slide
62
opening
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
62
opening
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
62
opening
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“A rigorous government-commissioned diagnostic with strong quantified evidence in the middle, but it buries the recommendation under appendices and over-relies on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for Storymakers narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses into a single 'Next steps' slide (p.69) followed by 36 pages of appendix — no recommendation slide, no executive ask
62
opening
Deloitte Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but conventional RFP-orals proposal — earns partial credit for an early thesis (p.4) and a quantified timeline title (p.6), but defaults to a methodology walk with topic-label phase titles, muddled Phase Three repetition, and a closing that fades into Q&A and 'About Deloitte'; useful as an example of RFP scaffolding, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing is essentially absent — p.16 'QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION' followed by p.17 'About Deloitte' with no recommendation, ask, or decision-required slide
62
opening
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA
62
opening
PREDICTIONS 2025 REPORT
“A competent annual-survey reference document that is well-structured topically but underbuilt as a Storymakers narrative — use the quadrant slides (28, 69, 71) and the early synthesis pages (6-7) as teaching exemplars, and use the rest of the deck as a counter-example of survey-question-as-title and missing-resolution.”
↓ ~40+ data slides (pp. 25-27, 34-46, 50-55, 59-64, 70-74) use the raw survey question as the title, leaving the audience to derive the 'so what'
62
opening
PUBLIC TRUST IN AI: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND REGULATION
“A competent five-act research report with a clear spine and several genuinely declarative slide titles, but the soft opening, noun-phrase dividers, and principle-level closing keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use the risks/benefits section (p.11–14) as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns four slides on cover/intro/TOC/takeaways before any evidence (p.1–4); a Storymakers opener would collapse these and lead with the answer
62
opening
PEOPLE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
“A competent insights report with pockets of strong action-titled storytelling, but it leans on repeated topic labels and a 40-page data appendix that buries its own recommendation — useful as a teaching example for individual insight titles (p9, p15, p20, p26), not for overall structure.”
↓ Title fatigue: 'Perceptions and understanding of climate risks' is used as the title for six distinct slides (p6, p8, p12, p13, p14, p16), making the deck feel like a topic dump instead of an argument
62
opening
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
62
opening
AADA Quadfecta Services for the Generative Enterprise™, 2024
“A competent analyst-report template with strong quantitative mid-section but weak Storymakers structure - useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide titles (pp. 17-19), not for narrative arc or closings.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action - the deck ends on a vendor profile (p.28) and an 'About HFS' page (p.31), so the buyer is left without a 'what to do Monday morning'
62
opening
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
62
opening
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3
62
opening
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
62
opening
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis
62
opening
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
62
opening
2019 Fueling Energy Future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong problem framing and declarative titles, but the recommendation is smeared across too many framework slides and the close is a marketing link — use p.3 and p.15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is diluted across seven consecutive framework slides (p.10-17 all variations of 'wise pivot') with no single climactic 'here is the answer' moment
62
opening
ESG momentum: Seven reported traits that set organizations apart
“A competent McKinsey research-survey readout with strong action titles and clean leader-vs-laggard benchmarking, but it never delivers the 'seven traits' MECE structure its title promises and closes on the authors page instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ The titular 'seven traits' are never explicitly named or numbered — the reader has to count and infer them across p.5-p.11
62
opening
What’s next for digital consumers
“A solid McKinsey insight memo with declarative titles and a real complication beat, but it buries the opening thesis and has no closing recommendation — use the title craft and p.8 tension as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening is soft: p.2 is a generic 'Introduction' instead of a thesis slide, costing one of the most valuable real-estate pages.
62
opening
Deloitte 2023 CxO Sustainability Report
“A competent research-report-as-deck with strong per-page action titles on the analytical spine but weak framing pages and a generic recommendation close — use pp. 5, 8, 14, 16 as a teaching example of good action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven near-identical «What leaders are saying about …» quote slides (pp. 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19) are topic labels, not insights, and flatten the narrative pace
62
opening
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
62
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
62
opening
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument
62
opening
Ipsos Populism Final February 2024
“A competent global survey readout with a strong paradox hook on p.3 that the rest of the deck fails to honor — usable as a teaching example of how survey-question titles and a missing recommendation act flatten an otherwise promising argument, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.35 title contains an unresolved template placeholder '[NOUN FOR PEOPLE FROM COUNTRY, PLURAL]' — a proofreading failure that undermines credibility