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 19 / 31
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
Evaluating NYC media sector
“A competent sector-scan deliverable with strong slide-level action titles but weak narrative architecture — use the analytical slides (p.6-25) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ 10 redundant 'Agenda' slides (p.5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 31, 37) — roughly 24% of the deck is navigation chrome
55
opening
Capgemini Engineering Overview 2021
“A credentials brochure masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-title catalog structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative, pillars, or action titles.”
↓ Two consecutive slides (p.10 and p.11) share the identical title 'SELECTED SUCCESS STORIES' with no differentiating action title
55
opening
Stepping Up the Pace Manufacturing
“A competent Cognizant thought-leadership report with a legible three-act pillar structure and strong benchmarking evidence, but it buries its recommendation and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for MECE section dividers and leader-vs-laggard storytelling, not for answer-first opening or decisive closing.”
↓ No answer-first opening — neither cover (p.1) nor intro (p.3) states the recommendation; reader must reach p.14-16 to see the 'copy the leaders' thesis
55
opening
Everest Group CPG Services
“A competent analyst-report briefing with two strong declarative titles but a procedural opening, no complication act, and a recommendation that fades into five pages of appendix — use pp.5, 7, and 8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening act is procedural: pp.1-4 consume a quarter of the deck on cover, 'Introduction', 'Scope', and framework mechanics before any thesis is asserted
55
opening
2023 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey
“A credible data-rich survey report with strong callouts and metrics, but structurally a topic-tour with question-form titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how to put insights in the title bar, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are almost uniformly questions rather than answers (p.8, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.21, p.23, p.25, p.26) — the reader has to mine callouts to extract the so-what
55
opening
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
55
opening
The Hotel Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent, well-chaptered Deloitte market-handbook that reads as analytical reference rather than persuasive story — use it as an example of MECE sectioning and hero-metric callouts, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or answer-first slide in the opening five — reader gets momentum stats but no argument
55
opening
VC Human Capital Survey
“A competent longitudinal survey report with a real three-act spine and a genuine call-to-action block, but titles are topic labels and the resolution is dwarfed by the analytical middle — use pp.38-40 as a teaching example of an explicit recommendations coda, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title layer carries almost no insight — 'Gender diversity' repeated on pp.12-15, 'Racial diversity' repeated 7x on pp.16-22; the pull-quotes do the work the titles should
55
opening
New Mexico State Staffing Study
“A thorough, well-templated operational diagnostic with disciplined per-function mini-arcs and quantified savings, but it reads as a reference document rather than a persuasive story — use its diagnosis-to-recommendation template as a teaching example, not its overall structure or opening/closing.”
↓ No aggregate savings / total-opportunity slide at either the opening or the close — the reader must sum ~$15M+ across 11 functional sections themselves
55
opening
IBV The Cognitive Enterprise
“A competent IBM thought-leadership brief with the right ingredients (client cases, a stake stat, next steps) but undermined by repeated topic-label titles and an invisible pillar structure — useful as a teaching example of why action-titling and section dividers matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides reuse the identical title 'The Cognitive Enterprise: The finance opportunity' (p.4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18), erasing any sense of forward motion
55
opening
14th Five-Year Plan Sector Impact
“A competent policy explainer organized as a sector-by-sector inventory — useful as an example of action titles and callout discipline, but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it has no pillars, no synthesis, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation, synthesis, or 'so-what' slide before the contact page (p.13 → p.14 contact)
55
opening
2022 CEO Outlook
“A data-rich research report dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored callouts, but its topic-label titles, missing Complication, and weak close make it a poor Storymakers exemplar overall.”
↓ No Complication act: p.4 lists 'four themes' but never escalates to a single tension the deck must resolve, so the middle reads as parallel topic chapters
55
opening
Our Impact Plan 2023
“A well-structured ESG/impact report with exemplary MECE pillar architecture but weak action titles and no call to action — use the section-divider structure as a teaching example, not the title craft or the closing.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (p.13 'Purposeful business', p.25 'Human rights', p.51 'Decarbonization', p.59 'Climate risk') — the action-title discipline is largely absent
55
opening
Our Impact Plan 2024
“A solid ESG disclosure document with strong quantification and case-study discipline, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a topic-taxonomy dump that buries insights behind noun titles and ends in an appendix — use the case-study craft and quantified callouts as teaching examples, not the structure or titling.”
↓ No closing act — last analytical content is Materiality methodology (pp.83–86), then 19 pages of appendix; deck ends on 'Contacts' (p.106) with no recommendation or call to commitment
55
opening
A future that works: AI, Automation, employment, and productivity
“A keynote-style thought-leadership deck with strong analytical chapter (p.13-18) but a missing Resolution act — use the middle as a Storymakers exemplar of action-titled analysis, not as a model for narrative close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closing slide p.22 'some real challenges to address' re-states the problem instead of resolving it
55
opening
Accelerating Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
“A pillar-organized ESG disclosure report with strong client-case storytelling but weak title discipline and no narrative resolution — useful as a teaching example for case-study slide construction (p.21–30) and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers exemplar of the full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels ('Our approach' p.34, 'Development' p.36, 'Our people' repeated as title on p.37 and p.42) — readers cannot skim titles and reconstruct the argument
55
opening
Brazil Digital Report
“A solid analytical landscape report with disciplined section structure and several strong declarative titles, but it reads as a research summary rather than a Storymakers deck — use the talent section's titling as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends on 'In summary:' (p.42) and a thank-you (p.43), violating the SCQA 'Resolution' act
55
opening
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“A competent McKinsey outlook with strong analytical titles per vector but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do' act — deck ends on the emissions gap (p.26) then jumps to 'Get in touch' (p.27)
55
opening
How nine digital frontrunners can lead on AI in Europe
“A well-sectioned McKinsey research report with solid quantification and a real recommendations chapter, but the thesis is buried behind a long definitional setup and the argument dissolves into a 14-page bibliography -- use it to teach sizing and sector deep-dives, not as an exemplar of opening or close.”
↓ Thesis is buried: the real 'answer' slide (p.20 'The nine digital frontrunners could play a leading role in Europe') sits 19 pages in, behind a 10-slide 'What is AI' definitional wade.