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
737 matching · page 19 / 31
58
opening
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? 2023
“Competent monthly survey-tracker report with strong stat callouts but topic-label titles, non-MECE sectioning, and no synthesis or call to action - useful as a 'before' teaching example for action-title rewriting and SCQA closure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution: deck closes on five country snapshots (p.24-28) and methodology (p.29) with zero synthesis, implication, or recommendation
58
opening
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights
“A polished annual research compendium with consistently strong action titles and an exemplary CX mini-arc (pp.58-77), but as a whole deck it is an eight-chapter trends catalogue rather than a single Storymakers argument — use the CX section as a teaching example of SCQA, not the overall structure.”
↓ No deck-level thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the first 5 pages — reader has to infer the argument from chapter titles
58
opening
Digitizing Make in India Report 2024
“A disciplined sector-intelligence report with exemplary parallel sub-structure inside Section 02, but it reads like an analytical reference manual rather than a Storymakers narrative — use the sunrise-sector template as a teaching example for MECE sub-pillars, not as a model for opening or closing a deck.”
↓ No answer-first opening: two 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' pages (pp. 5-6) use the label as the title instead of stating the thesis, and the first insight-bearing action title doesn't appear until p. 10.
58
opening
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
58
opening
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
58
opening
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
58
opening
Generative AI Making Waves
“A well-structured analytical taxonomy with a memorable proprietary framework (WaveGram), but topic-label titles and a soft open/close make it a teaching example for framework design and MECE decomposition — not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly nouns/labels (p.20, p.26, p.28–34, p.43–49) — the deck reads as taxonomy, not argument
58
opening
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
58
opening
ipsos pride report 2025
“Syndicated research report with a strong 5-slide editorial summary bolted onto a 35-slide data appendix; use slides 5-9 as a Storymakers exemplar for translating data into narrative, but the overall structure is a topic dump, not a story.”
↓ Title duplication: 'LGBT Attitudes by Country' appears on at least 5 slides (11, 13, 15, 17, 23) with no insight extracted on the page itself
58
opening
International Women's Day 2023 full report
“A clean, well-segmented IPSOS research report that leads with findings but ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of disciplined section architecture and well-written callouts, but a cautionary example of titles-as-survey-questions and missing 'so what' resolution.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.16, p.17, p.18, p.19, p.20 all share the title 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?'
58
opening
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
58
opening
pwc my electric vehicle sales review q4 2024
“A competent quarterly data review with a strong opening hook and a few sharp regional titles, but it functions as a reference document rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3 and p.7 as title-writing examples, not the structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends in four consecutive 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables (p.19-22), then bios and 'Thank you' (p.25)
58
opening
gpc genai ocsummaryv2 content
“A credible Gartner survey digest with a strong sample-size hook and decent per-function action titles, but structurally it is an analytical dump — no SCQA arc, blank section dividers, and a marketing CTA where the recommendation should be; use the per-function slides (p.26–36) as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Repeated identical titles on consecutive slides (p.4–6 'Barriers…', p.7–9 'Identifying… Benefits', p.10–12 'Pinpointing Use Cases') signal a topic dump rather than a build
58
opening
Wilton Park Policy Brief 17102024
“A competent policy-brief structure with a disciplined before/after analytical spine and one genuinely memorable number, but front-matter-heavy opening and a soft, appendix-trailing close make it a good teaching example of analytical rigor rather than of Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: 4 of the first 5 slides are front-matter or generically-titled summary; no page in the first third states the recommendation
58
opening
Accelerating Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
“An ESG compliance report dressed as a deck — front-loaded KPIs and a clean three-pillar spine are usable as teaching examples for section dividers, but topic-label titles, the missing complication act, and a 23-slide appendix tail make it a weak overall Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing collapses into a 23-slide appendix tail (pp.67-89) with no recommendation or forward-looking ask — the deck ends on a CPA assertion (p.87) and a URL (p.89), not an invitation
58
opening
1100 Aircastle
“A competent investor-relations factbook with a thesis bookend and a few strong industry-trend titles, but a MECE-less middle and topic-label financials make it a cautionary Storymakers example rather than an exemplar — use pp.20-22 as a teaching moment on directional titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the investor's worry (leverage? cyclicality? AAM disruption?) so the analytical build has nothing to resolve.
58
opening
tifs investor presentation deutsche bank 17 june 21
“Competent IR deck with strong quantified middle-section titles but a weak hook and no closing ask — use the p.10–13 diversification/market-position slides as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on a margin-expansion chart (p.33) and then jumps to Appendix with no recap of the investment case
55
opening
Bridging the Skills Gap in the Future Workforce
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear problem→answer→ask spine, but it breaks its own 'three steps' MECE promise and hides insights behind generic chart labels — use p.7, p.20, and p.22 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Missing STEP TWO and STEP THREE dividers — the MECE promise made on p.16 is never kept, so pp.22 and 25 read as a stream rather than parallel pillars
55
opening
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
55
opening
Reinventing Operations in Asset Management
“A research-report-style thought leadership deck with strong stats but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example of stat-led callouts, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No declarative answer-first opening — p.1-3 set context without naming what Accenture believes the reader should do
55
opening
Value untangled Amplify speed to value through interoperability
“A solid Accenture research report with an intact SCQA spine and good quantified evidence, but it opens slowly, lets recommendation titles collapse to topic labels, and closes on a restatement rather than a call to action — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure and case-study placement, not for opening hooks or closes.”
↓ Opening burns five slides on context before the thesis lands at p9 — no answer-first hook
55
opening
2021 P&C Underwriting Survey
“A rigorous but inert survey-findings readout — useful as a teaching example of consistent callouts and segmentation discipline, but a Storymakers anti-example for its noun-titles, missing recommendation act, and taxonomy-over-argument structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on open-end verbatims (p.57-58) with zero call to action
55
opening
Open Education Resources ecosystem
“Solid analytical middle with strong declarative titles, but it opens with framework scaffolding instead of a thesis and never closes with a recommendation — use pp. 8-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — p.16 is the only candidate and it defers to 'track metrics consistently', which is a process ask, not an answer
55
opening
How Can US Brands Reach Gen Z
“A well-titled but structurally incomplete insights handout — great teaching example for declarative action titles, poor exemplar for Storymakers narrative arc or MECE pillars.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck asks 'what do brands need to know?' on p.2 but never answers 'therefore, do X'