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
35 matching · page 2 / 2
55
opening
Fearon DBConference 2019
“A competent investor/IR deck with strong action-title discipline and a real arc, but it buries the thesis 20 slides in and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example of action-title writing and slide-chaining, not of Storymakers opening/closing craft.”
↓ Thesis deferred ~20 pages — p.21 'Eaton is well positioned to take advantage of these growth trends' should be near the front, not two-thirds in
50
opening
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
50
opening
GenAI retail commercial banking
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative action titles in its analytical middle, but it reads as a research dump rather than an argument — use pp.8-18 as a teaching example for metric-anchored titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do about it' slide — the deck ends at p.22 with a use-case list and never resolves the S→C→A→R arc
50
opening
The Next Gen Index Millennials and Gen Z in the US
“A data-driven trend report with strong metric-anchored titles but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title hygiene, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — closes on a context slide (p.17) that restates a generic premise instead of resolving
48
opening
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
45
opening
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
45
opening
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible
45
opening
id19 growth in wealth management
“A competent investor-day update with strong quantified middle-section analytics but a stapled three-division structure, generic dividers and summaries, and no opening thesis or closing ask — useful as a teaching example of good action-title writing in the analytical core, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — slides 1–4 are cover, disclaimer, divider, and bullet highlights; the audience never gets a single-slide answer up front
40
opening
AI Healthcare Errors
“A well-evidenced analytical case-study tour with strong mid-deck action titles, but it lacks the SCQA opener and synthesis closer needed to work as a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 9, 15 and 16 for teaching declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the title promises 'preventing healthcare errors' but no slide in pp.1–8 sizes the error problem or names the Question
40
opening
Barclays Credit Bureau Forum 2023
“A competent investor-forum container with strong per-slide action titles in the BU sections but no forum-level story arc, weak opening, and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of good quantitative action titles, not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Nine-slide run pp.14-22 all titled 'Cloud Technology Platform' — pure topic labels with no insight, no progression, no action title
38
opening
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix