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 12 / 31
65
opening
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4 2022
“A competent quarterly market bulletin with a strong opening and quotable callouts, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title openings and TCO framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.21–23 with three identical 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables, then contacts, then 'Thank you' — zero recommendations or implications for OEMs/policymakers.
65
opening
LIVING BUSINESS Achieving Sustainable Growth Through Hyper-Relevance
“A solid thought-leadership report with genuinely MECE pillars and strong analytical titles in the build-up, but fragment-style pillar slides and a missing recommendation act make it a useful teaching example for framework structure, not for full Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Pillar content slides (p14, p17, p21, p24, p27) all use colon-fragment titles like 'Companies should:' - reads as a placeholder for bullets, not a Storymakers action title
65
opening
The Growing Challenge of Semiconductor Design Leadership
“Solid SIA/BCG advocacy briefing with strong quantified middle (p.8-13) but no recommendation and a slow open — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.14 sizes the prize ($450B) but never says what policies, leaving the deck as a problem statement without an answer
65
opening
Nielsen Fan Insights
“A competent data-reporting deck with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, but not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.17 'Thank you!' with zero call to action
65
opening
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competently-titled industry barometer with one excellent thematic mini-arc (China/SEA, p.20–24) but no SCQA resolution — use individual action titles like p.20 as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Outlook (p.25–26) is a single content slide with a topic-label title — the natural 'answer' moment of the deck is empty
65
opening
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
65
opening
[Presentation title] 6th ICO / STO Report
“A competent market-update report with strong individual action titles but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for title-writing and callouts, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'Executive Summary' is a label, not an answer — a true exec summary should state the thesis in the title
65
opening
The State of Fashion 2025
“An encyclopedic annual industry report with strong McKinsey-style action titles and disciplined per-theme SCQA, but it lacks an overarching arc and fizzles into pull-quotes and appendices — use the analytical sections (especially Sportswear pp.99-108 and the Global Fashion Index pp.129-141) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No synthesis slide before the appendix — pp.141-145 dribble into pull-quotes ('Fashion System', 'McKinsey Global Fashion Index') instead of a 10-theme recap or CTA
65
opening
The Inflation Reduction Act: Here’s what’s in it
“A competent McKinsey policy explainer with disciplined money-throughline and several strong quantified titles, but it is structurally an analytical primer — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never names a Complication or lands a Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — deck ends on p.11 fiscal chart then jumps straight to author bios (p.12)
65
opening
KEYS Environment Emergency
“A multi-presenter Ipsos webinar package with strong individual data points but no spine — useful as a source of stat callouts and the 'Shield/Sword/Standard' framework, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it ends in a case-study trail-off and contains a mid-deck thank-you slide.”
↓ Mid-deck 'THANK YOU' on p.29 followed by 30+ more slides reveals this is stitched-together speaker segments, not one narrative
65
opening
COPERNICUS Market report February 2019
“A rigorous nine-sector market impact report with strong MECE bones and good quantified case studies, but it is structured as a research deliverable rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for parallel sector analysis and SWOT title-craft, not for opening hooks, action titles, or closing resolution.”
↓ No closing act — the deck stops at security case study p.155 with zero recommendation, next-step, or 'so what for EU funding' slide
65
opening
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
65
opening
EY Foundation 2022 2023 Impact Report
“A competent non-profit impact report with strong stakes and a bold closing target, but title quality and the long un-pillared case-study run keep it short of a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'how to use callouts to carry the argument' counter-example more than a structural template.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly nouns ('Income', 'Volunteers', 'Welcome', 'Smart Futures') instead of insight-bearing claims
65
opening
Morgan+Stanley+Conference+Presentation
“A competent investor-conference showcase with strong action titles and a quantitative spine, but it is a parade of proof points rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative structure or closes.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action; deck dies into a disclaimer at p.10 and a brand plate at p.11
65
opening
business leaders outlook pulse 2023 ada
“A competently-written survey-results deck with strong callout writing but no narrative arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles—use it as a counter-example of how a thoughtful exec summary can be wasted by a structureless body and a missing close.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or call-to-action anywhere in the deck—it ends on 'External threats' (p.8) then methodology
65
opening
keep moving forward
“A well-disciplined sales-marketing deck with strong MECE pillar architecture and quantified hooks, but title craft and the closing CTA are too soft to serve as a Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar structure as a teaching example, not the titles or the close.”
↓ Several titles are topic labels rather than insights — p.5 'Start here', p.9 'Today / Tomorrow', p.12 'Assessing your environment today' bury the so-what
65
opening
20250311 jpm conference presentation
“A competent investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean closing arc, but front-matter-heavy and missing explicit MECE pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.9, p.13), not for overall structure.”
↓ 27% of the deck (p.1-4) is front matter before the thesis lands — disclaimer/glossary/agenda crowd out narrative real estate
65
opening
Barclays US Consumer Bank 2024 Barclays Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report
“A competent research-bulletin deck with strong stat-led callouts but a weak narrative spine — useful as an example of numerical action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of SCQA structure or persuasive close.”
↓ Slide 5 has a non-title ('2024 Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report | 5') — a running footer mistaken for an action title, wasting a data-table slide
64
opening
IPSOS HEALTH SERVICE REPORT 2024
“A competent global-survey data release with MECE pillars and strong headline numbers, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case — topic-label titles and a missing resolution act make it a reference for analytical structure, not narrative.”
↓ Action titles are essentially absent — pp.7, 20–22, 24, 30–40, 42–47 use the verbatim survey question as the title, forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
64
opening
The Best Service Providers for Commercial Banks, 2025
“A competent analyst-report excerpt with a clean skeleton and one strong hook, but it buries the ranking, closes on a vendor placard, and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example of section architecture and the p2 hook, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Thesis (seven Horizon 3 leaders named on p15) is buried 60% of the way through the deck
63
opening
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017
“Rigorous, defensible public-sector budget-analysis report with a strong quantified thesis up front and clean MECE pillars, but it reads as a reference document rather than a Storymakers deck — use the exec summary (p.7-9) and impact rollup (p.118-127) as teaching exemplars, not the overall structure or the tail.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends on scenario table p.183 and appendix p.185-190, so the reader has no 'therefore, decide X' moment
62
opening
Banking on AI Banking Top 10 Trends for 2024
“Well-researched trend-report masquerading as a deck — strong figure titles and metrics make it a useful teaching example for evidence-driven slides, but the enumerative 10-trend structure and buried thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF / pyramid principle — the deck never leads with an answer; the exec summary is on p.45 of 48, not p.2
62
opening
Global Banking Consumer Study Reignite human connections to discover hidden value
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE discipline and a strong hook, but it opens with context and closes with recap — use Chapter 2's pivot-to-play nesting as a teaching example of MECE layering, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 7 pages of 'forces' before the reader is told what to do about them
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