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
62
opening
BCG's Guide to Cost and Growth
“A competently argued thought-leadership deck with disciplined numeric action titles and a visible three-act spine, but it buries its recommendation behind a capabilities pitch — use p.3-9 and p.12-16 as a teaching example of statistic-led titling, not the overall close.”
↓ Closing collapses into capability-marketing: p.22 'BCG has deep expertise in cost management' replaces the recommendation slide the arc was building toward
62
opening
ESG momentum: Seven reported traits that set organizations apart
“A competent McKinsey research-survey readout with strong action titles and clean leader-vs-laggard benchmarking, but it never delivers the 'seven traits' MECE structure its title promises and closes on the authors page instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ The titular 'seven traits' are never explicitly named or numbered — the reader has to count and infer them across p.5-p.11
62
opening
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
58
opening
Risk management in transformation
“A competently structured analytical survey report with a visible three-act spine and a recommendation slide, but too many titles are topic labels or figure captions — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture and front-loaded takeaways, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Roughly a third of body slides use raw figure captions as titles ('Figure 10...', 'Figure 15...', 'Figure 24...', 'Figure 25...') — topic labels, not findings
55
opening
Digital Finance Seeing is Believing
“A competent webinar companion deck with a clean four-act journey and a strong case-study triptych, but interrogative titles and heavy front-matter make it only a mediocre Storymakers exemplar — use the Problem/Solution/Benefits case-study cadence as a teaching sample, not the overall title craft.”
↓ Six slides of webinar front-matter (p.1-6) before any content — thesis doesn't land until p.10, violating 'lead with the answer'
55
opening
Mental health today A deep dive based on the 2023 Gen Z and Millennial survey
“A competent, research-backed Deloitte thought-leadership deck with the bones of a Storymakers arc but soft titles and a buried thesis - use p.5 and p.8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Multiple slides (p.7, p.15, p.22, p.23) carry the report's running header as their title, leaving the reader without an action title on key hinge pages - including the two final recommendation slides.
55
opening
2022 Deloitte US India Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Transparency Report
“A competent DEI transparency report with a recognizable pillar structure and good callout quotes, but it reads as a corporate disclosure rather than a Storymakers-grade argument — use the pillar-closing 'Summary of goals' slides as a teaching example, not the title-writing or opening.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis behind 5 front-matter/quote slides; no answer-first slide in the first 3 pages
55
opening
ey digital survey shaping the new normal
“A competent, well-titled regional-survey topic dump with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not of story structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation — deck ends on a data slide (p41) and a 'Contact us' (p42), with zero 'so what' for the reader
48
opening
Shaping Future Indian ME
“A polished industry-outlook report with strong sector-level action titles and a clear two-pillar spine, but the recommendation is a single afterthought slide — use the sector deep-dives (p.20–26) and the headroom build (p.10–11, p.27) as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Recommendation reduced to one slide (p.43) with a topic-label title and no prioritization, owner, or sequencing
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
35
opening
Sportech 2021 Paris, February 2022
“A competent analytical scan of French sportech with strong metric-laden titles and good callouts, but no thesis, no resolution, and overlapping pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: pages 1-4 are cover/agenda/divider/context — the deck never states what question it answers or why the reader should care