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 14 / 31
62
opening
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
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
Turkish NPL Purchasing Market Overview and the way forward
“A rigorous, scenario-driven Turkish NPL market study with strong forecast craftsmanship but weak Storymakers hygiene — use p.18-30 as a teaching example for forecast architecture, not for narrative or action-title discipline.”
↓ The promised 'way forward' is missing — no recommendation, no implication-for-AMCs slide, and the deck ends in policy recap + abbreviations + contact rather than a close
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
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
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
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
Rethinking the course to manufacturing’s future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with genuine MECE pillar discipline and a solid closing arc, but too many topic-label titles and a delayed thesis keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use its pillar structure and closing triplet as teaching material, not its opening.”
↓ Thesis is delayed: 3 front-matter slides plus 2 context slides mean the core claim isn't fully framed until p.5–7
62
opening
Banking Consumer Study 2025
“A genuinely strong Storymakers exemplar for pillar architecture and imperative recommendation titles, weakened only by a soft, metaphor-led opening and figure pages that hide their insight in the caption.”
↓ Opening is soft: cover is metaphorical (p.1), TOC + methodology occupy p.2–3, and there is no answer-first slide stating the recommendation before the build-up begins.
62
opening
Pulse of Fintech H1’21
“A solid MECE market-intelligence report with disciplined numeric section dividers and several genuinely declarative action titles, but no SCQA arc and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for region/segment structure and insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative or close.”
↓ Repeated topic-label titles inside the analytical sections ('Global insights' pp.7/8/9/14; 'Fintech segments — Payments' pp.17/18; 'Regional insights — Americas' pp.35/36) waste page real-estate that should carry the chart's takeaway
62
opening
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competent PwC barometer report with a clean numbered structure and strong evidence, but it reads as an analytical briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of declarative M&A action titles (p.9–11), not as a model of opening hooks or closing calls to action.”
↓ Opening (p.1–4) wastes four pages on cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider before any thesis appears, and the Summary on p.5 is labelled 'Summary' instead of stating the answer
62
opening
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“Analytically rigorous macro chart-pack with strong action titles in the first third, but it abandons the story arc halfway and ends without a recommendation — use pp.5-21 as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the deck structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on p.61 yield curves and p.62 About Accenture, so the reader never gets an ask
62
opening
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely
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
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A competent survey-report deck with a real thesis and a landed recommendation, but structured as an analytical tour rather than a tight Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing in the motivation section (pp.14-17), not as a model for opening discipline or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis inside a 3-part executive summary (pp.5-7) instead of stating the answer on p.2 or p.3
62
opening
Women @ Work 2023: 7 The Gender Equality Leaders are benefiting from doing it right
“A well-organized thematic research report with unusually strong section dividers and insight-bearing body titles, but generic 'Executive summary' and 'Our recommendations' bookends blunt both the opener and the close — use the section dividers and body slides as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Executive summary' (pp.3-5) and three titled 'Our recommendations' (pp.35-37) — the most important bookend slides use topic labels instead of insights
62
opening
2019 Holiday Survey of Consumers Keeping the good times rolling
“A competently titled but structurally flat research-findings deck — use its slide-level action titles and quantified callouts as teaching examples, but not its architecture, which buries the recommendation and ends on a methodology slide.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — the 'How to win the holidays' section (p.29-31) is only 3 slides and describes high-spender demographics rather than prescribing retailer actions
62
opening
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
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