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 17 / 31
60
opening
Global Top 100 Companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual ranking publication with a few model action titles but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how a research-report format collapses Storymakers structure, not as an exemplar of it.”
↓ No recommendation, no 'so what', no closing synthesis — deck ends in raw rankings (p.36-40) then Contact (p.41)
60
opening
ey og q3 2020 price point client deck
“A competent periodic market-outlook brief with one good editorial instinct (the 'divergence' theme) that it fails to pay off — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and an unresolved thesis flatten an otherwise well-sequenced analysis.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Market fundamentals' appears 3x (p.5–7) and 'Gas price outlook' 2x (p.10–11) with no differentiation
60
opening
ey og q2 2021 price point client deck
“A competent quarterly market briefing with strong callouts and quantified analysis, but it stops at 'here is what we see' and never reaches 'here is what to do' — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and editorial pull-quotes, not for storymaking structure or action titles.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends in 4 appendix slides plus contacts, with zero recommendation or 'what to do about it'
60
opening
FIBA faninsights juli24
“A competent Nielsen data-tour report with strong callouts but weak narrative spine — useful as an example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, not as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles or SCQA closure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — the deck stops at p.16 demographics and jumps straight to 'Thank you!' (p.17), leaving FIBA with data but no advice
60
opening
state of workplace study
“A competent research/thought-leadership report with stats-driven callouts and a topical three-pillar spine, but it buries the recommendation — use p8, p9, and p21 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No complication slide — tension is implied by stats but never dramatized, so p8-p29 reads as an analytical dump
60
opening
cb product fraud mitigation success
“A short, competent client-facing teaser with one strong proof point but a buried lede and a generic close — usable as a Storymakers example of action titles, not of arc construction.”
↓ Answer-first violated: the headline result on p.2 should lead, not follow the threat slide on p.1
60
opening
Keynote address
“Solid analytical briefing with above-average action titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — useful as an exemplar of evidence-anchored analytical slides, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation — slide 21 is just 'THANK YOU!', wasting the highest-recall slot in the deck
60
opening
unlocking the uk s tech talent potential
“A well-sourced landscape report structured as a talent-lifecycle taxonomy — use the MECE pillar spine and embedded case studies as teaching examples, but not the narrative: it sets up a £63b problem and never delivers a recommendation.”
↓ No resolution: the £63b problem set up on p.3 is never tied to a recommendation, leaving the deck as a landscape report rather than a consulting argument
60
opening
Barclays+Investor+Presentation+vFINAL
“A competent investor-conference deck with a real thesis (valuation disconnect) and good callout discipline, but 55% appendix, no pillar structure, and a reconciliation-table ending make it a fair example of analytical framing - not a Storymakers exemplar of narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 11 of 20 slides (p.10-20) are appendix material - the deck is structurally back-heavy and the storyline ends at p.9
60
opening
20240220 Barclays UK Investor Update
“A competent investor-update deck with a clean pillar structure and a committed recommendation, but underpowered in complication-setting and answer-first opening - use pp.5-9 as a teaching example of MECE pillar-prefixed titles, not as a full narrative exemplar.”
↓ No explicit complication / 'why now' slide - the deck moves from context straight into framework, weakening narrative tension
60
opening
Arion Bank Fireside chat slides
“A competent investor-update deck with strong quantified action titles and clean macro framing, but it is analytical reportage rather than a Storymakers narrative — use pp.7–10 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication or tension: the deck never names what is at stake or what decision the audience must make
58
opening
Blueprint for Service Success
“A competently structured consulting deck with a real S-C-A-R arc and a strong segmentation frame, but weakened by topic-label titles and a buried thesis — use its segmentation and roadmap slides as teaching examples, not its opening or titling.”
↓ Titles frequently fall back to figure labels ('Figure 1a', 'Figure 2c', 'Figure 5') instead of stating the insight the figure proves
58
opening
Modern Networks
“A structurally sound three-imperative consulting argument with strong quantified action titles in the middle — teach the p.17-32 resolution arc as the exemplar, but flag the buried opening and generic CTA as the anti-patterns to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — p.1 cover and p.2-3 cases arrive before the thesis on p.4-5, costing the reader the first 4 pages
58
opening
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
58
opening
The “new” rules of engagement
“A solid survey-report deck with strong action titles and a readable tension-release arc, but it leads with context rather than the answer and under-delivers on the close — use p.7-12 as a teaching example of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.4 and p.5 are near-duplicate 'key message' slides up front — redundancy dilutes the opening
58
opening
Transforming the Industry that transformed the World: 01 Shift to as-a-serice
“A disciplined, template-driven thought-leadership deck with strong per-pillar rhythm but a flat overall arc and no synthesis close - use its section architecture and case-led pillar pattern as a teaching example, not its opening or ending.”
↓ No closing synthesis - deck ends inside pillar #5 (p.29) then jumps to survey-method appendix (p.30), leaving five imperatives un-prioritized and no CTA
58
opening
Global Restart Key Dynamics COVID-19
“A competent mid-crisis analytical update with strong insight-bearing chart titles but no story arc - use pp.10/16/24 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (pp.6 and 30 both titled 'Key dynamics of the restart') collapse the pillar structure and signal no MECE spine
58
opening
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
58
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“A high-craft thought-leadership report with exemplary action-title discipline and clean MECE pillars, but it opens procedurally and trails off into a country appendix instead of landing a recommendation -- use its titles and section architecture as a Storymakers teaching example, not its opening or closing.”
↓ Opening burns 7 slides on front matter before the thesis lands at p.8 -- no hook or stakes in the first 5
58
opening
UNC Chapel Hill Cost Diagnostic
“A competent Bain diagnostic with a clear options inventory but soft narrative framing and lazy pagination titles — use p.14 as a teaching example of an insight-bearing title, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: 5 slides of front-matter before the key findings on p.6
58
opening
Syracuse University Diagnostic Report
“A credible Bain fact-base diagnostic with strong methodology framing but a sprawling middle and near-absent recommendation — use the setup (p.7-8) and two early insight titles (p.12-13) as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Buried thesis — no answer-first slide; the core tension (expense growth outpacing revenue) appears at p.12, not p.3
58
opening
Digital Consumer Trends 2023
“A well-executed annual trends report with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc and no recommendation - use its title craft and callout discipline as a teaching example, not its structure.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on cost-of-living data (p.43) and a 'visit our hub' card (p.44), with zero recommendation or so-what
58
opening
Insights from the leading edge of generative AI adoption
“Solid Deloitte thought-leadership survey deck with strong action-title craft in the middle but a diffuse opening and a repetitive four-slide close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative structure.”
↓ Four closing slides titled identically 'Next: Looking ahead' (p.25, 27, 29, 30) — reader cannot distinguish the recommendations or track progress
58
opening
IFRS 9 Impairment Banking Survey
“A dense, insight-rich benchmarking survey whose callouts do the storytelling while the titles abdicate it — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks a resolution act and mistakes a numbered TOC for a narrative spine.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — p.6-17 all read '1. Impact assessment – [subtopic]' with the actual finding hidden in the callout