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 13 / 16
50
opening
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
50
opening
Trend Compendium 2050 Full Version
“A high-quality thought-leadership compendium with strong quantified titles but no SCQA spine — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft, not of executive narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1-5 establish topic and scope but never state a thesis or stakes the executive must care about
50
opening
The age of Generative AI: Unveiling the next frontier of digital procurement
“A solid McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong individual titles and a clean two-pillar back half, but a context-heavy opening and a soft 'Closing note' close make it a useful teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening (pp.1–5) is pure context with no thesis — reader must wait 5+ slides for the point
50
opening
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent annual sustainability report with credible KPIs but topic-label titles and no SCQA spine — useful as a 'how to surface impact numbers' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Duplicate titles on pp.6–7 ('Key programmes helping us deliver on our corporate sustainability goals:') reveal the lack of distinct, MECE narrative pillars
50
opening
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A credible trend-survey report mis-cast as a deck — useful as a cautionary example of how strong evidence and good callouts can still fail Storymakers when titles are topic labels and the closing is a URL.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on a blockchain chart (p.16) and a URL (p.17)
50
opening
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
50
opening
ey praesentation startup barometer 2025 englisch
“A disciplined EY research barometer with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 4, 8, and 11 as exemplars of headline-number titles, but not the deck structure as a Storymakers model.”
↓ No SCQA setup: the deck never frames why 2024 matters, what changed for German startups, or what question the data is answering
50
opening
Goldman Sachs Presentation Final
“A competent investor-conference deck with a strong analytical mid-section but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — use slides 7-12 as a mini exemplar of action-title + callout discipline, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides; p.3 'U.S. Bancorp' is a topic label where a point-of-view slide should be
50
opening
PR Barclays Presentation 9.06.22 FINAL Update
“A competent investor-pitch deck with rigorous quantitative evidence but a weak narrative scaffold — useful as an example of strong financial pillars and supporting callouts, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening, MECE structure, or closing.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages — the merger rationale is buried at p6 behind disclaimers and bios
48
opening
Climate Change: BCG’s Perspectives and Offerings
“An analytically strong, well-titled educational deck with a clean three-act spine that buries its own punchline - use p.17-p.25 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, but not as a structural exemplar because the promised 'Offerings' never land.”
↓ No answer-first slide - the thesis doesn't crystallize until p.7, and even then it's a problem statement not a recommendation
48
opening
The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight (7th Edition)
“A competent BCG industry-insights report with strong data-bearing action titles, but narratively it is an analytical dump without an SCQA resolution — use pp.9, 11, 14, 18 as teaching examples for action-title quality, not the overall structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide: thesis only hinted at on p.6 after 5 front-matter/context pages
48
opening
Technology Trust Ethics Preparing the workforce for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI: C-suite perspectives
“A competent survey-findings report with strong stat-led slide titles but weak narrative architecture — useful as a teaching example for action titles at the slide level, not for deck-level Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never states why ethical AI readiness is urgent or what goes wrong without it
48
opening
IoT Big Data Value Creation
“An atmospheric thought-leadership deck that sets up a topic without ever delivering an answer — useful as a cautionary example of strong context with no Resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closes on 'challenges' (p.17) and a Clarke quote (p.18) instead of an answer
48
opening
GEM Outlook 2023-2027 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC outlook report with above-average action-title craft in the segment sections, but it reads as an analytical inventory rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides 9, 13, 17, 20 as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 02 → 04 (no section 03), signalling either lost content or a sloppy bolt-on of the GenAI module
48
opening
Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020
“Textbook BCG analytical deck with clean MECE pillars and quantified action titles in the body, but classic objectives-first sequencing buries the lede — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and pillar discipline, not for opening or answer-first storytelling.”
↓ Buries the lede — 8 pages of objectives/approach/segmentation before the headline -15% finding on p.9; an answer-first opening would invert this
48
opening
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
48
opening
KPMG global tech report 2024
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong stat-anchored mid-section titles and a real conclusion+CTA arc, but it organizes findings instead of telling a story — useful as an example of pillar discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: p.1-5 are cover, TOC, foreword, methodology, and a teaser before the first insight slide at p.7
48
opening
Accenture Post and Parcel Industry Research 2019
“A solid industry thought-leadership report with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts, but weak Storymakers exemplar overall — use sections 1–2 as a model for action titles and MECE build, not as a template for opening and close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 3–5 pages — reader must reach p.21 '5 SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES DETERMINE HIGH PERFORMANCE' to find the organizing answer
48
opening
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
48
opening
modern retirement monthly report en
“A polished UBS client-education guidebook with strong MECE lifecycle pillars but weak SCQA narrative and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for framework-driven structure, not for Storymakers storytelling.”
↓ No SCQA arc — deck never frames a complication; it jumps from 'why' (p.4) to framework (p.5) to lifecycle education with no tension to resolve
48
opening
rapporto di sostenibilita ey italia eng
“A competent corporate sustainability report with a genuinely MECE three-pillar spine and strong KPI callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar — topic-label titles, six slides titled '2022', and an appendix-fade ending mean it should be used as a counter-example for title rewriting and answer-first openings, not as a structural model.”
↓ Six different slides titled simply '2022' (pp.31, 41, 55, 57, 66, 77) — a critical title-quality failure that hides the insight on each page
48
opening
goldman sachs may 2021
“A competent IR/earnings presentation with above-average action titles, but structurally a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative design.”
↓ No Situation→Complication setup: jumps from sustainability theme (p.3-10) straight into Q1 results (p.11) with no bridging tension
48
opening
QDEL JPM 2024 Presentation vfinal 010824 9 am PT
“Competent JPM-conference investor deck with a clean three-pillar build and a bookended 'Focused Path' recap, but it skips the Complication, leans on topic-label titles in key slots, and trails off into 'Thank you' — useful as a title-craft example for the Savanna and synergy slides, not as an overall narrative arc exemplar.”
↓ No Complication act: the deck never names a problem, market threat, or competitive tension, so SCQA collapses to S→A→R.
45
opening
Streaming Video Back to Future
“A tight analytical insight deck with strong action titles slide-by-slide, but missing the opening thesis and closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title-writing, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1 is a mood title and p.2 jumps into a chart finding with no stated question or stakes.