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
30 matching · page 2 / 2
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
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“A solid BCG operating-model diagnostic with disciplined quantification and peer benchmarks, but it reads as a dense board-report archive rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its diagnosis→recommendation pairing within function sections as a teaching pattern, not its overall opening or closing.”
↓ The recommendation is buried: 22 pages of preamble (team bios on p.13, $5M BCG self-investment on p.8, project phases on p.6) precede the first substantive finding at p.23
38
opening
Chilean Hydrogen Pathway
“Competent analytical build with strong title-writing in the Chile-business-case core, but it buries its 25 GW recommendation mid-deck and ends in a numbered initiative dump - useful as a teaching example for data-bearing action titles, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide in the first 5 pages; the thesis (slide 46) lands at ~70% depth
38
opening
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
30
opening
ASEAN Growth and Scale Talent Playbook
“A well-pillared analytical playbook with strong data-driven action titles, but it buries its thesis under 11 pages of forewords and ends without a recommendation — use the middle (pp.13-30 diagnosis, pp.31-67 MECE pillars) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the framing.”
↓ 11 slides of front matter (pp.1-11) with five forewords delays the thesis past any executive's attention budget
18
opening
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“This is an educational primer on how the U.S. federal courts work — not a consulting argument — and serves as a counter-example for Storymakers, useful only to illustrate what happens when a deck has topic labels but no thesis, analysis, or recommendation.”
↓ Action titles carry zero insight — every slide title is a noun phrase (e.g. p.10 'THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS', p.23 'The Appeals Process'); a reader skimming titles learns nothing.