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 20 / 31
55
opening
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
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
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
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A solid diagnostic survey deck with strong action-titled middle analysis but a hedged opening and a one-slide recommendation — use p.8-16 as a teaching example of insight titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: p.4-5 'Executive summary' callouts are hedged and don't state the one-line answer; no BLUF in first 3 slides
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
Infrastructure Barometer Italy
“A classically-structured EY barometer report with credible data and sharp callouts, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar: topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act turn a potentially confident point of view into a survey readout.”
↓ No recommendation or Resolution act — the deck ends at p.12 on a 'divided opinion' note followed by Contacts, violating the Storymakers answer-first principle
55
opening
Parthenon Profit Warnings Q4
“A competent quarterly data bulletin with strong callout writing but weak storytelling — use the callouts as a teaching example of insight sentences, but not the overall structure, which dumps analysis and never resolves.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (10, 11, 12) share the identical title 'Sectors to watch' — no differentiation, no MECE split
55
opening
IBV Smarter Workforce Institute
“A competent IBV thought-leadership deck with a real recommendation (FORT) at the end, but the repeated topic-label titles and bloated context section make it a teaching example for naming discipline, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ The same title 'Amplifying employee voice' is reused on p.1, 4, 6, 8, and 22 — wastes the most valuable real estate on the slide
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
Steering Clear of the IT Danger Zones
“A competent short-form Executive Insights brief with strong action titles and a clean recommendation, but the bullish opening undercuts the 'danger zones' thesis — useful as an example of tight title craft, less so as a model of SCQA tension-setting.”
↓ Opening slides (p.2-4) lead with optimism and bury the 'danger' thesis the cover promises until p.5-6
55
opening
APAC Hospital Insights 2023
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and clean three-pillar MECE structure, but it ends in firm marketing instead of a recommendation — use sections 2-4 as a teaching example for action titles and pyramid sequencing, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No 'So what?' resolution slide — the deck ends at p.27 (last agenda divider) and jumps straight to firm credentials on p.28-30; no synthesis of implications for healthcare providers, MedTech, or pharma
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
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
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
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.
55
opening
Global Growth Development Context
“A solid context-setting trend pack with strong quantified action titles, but it is a Setup-only deck with no Analysis or Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — p.11 frames the problem and the deck ends, leaving the audience with tension and no answer
55
opening
Future Energy Landscape Netherlands
“A data-rich McKinsey market-outlook deck with strong quantified titles in the Netherlands section but a missing thesis up front, duplicate section dividers, and a non-committal close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and cost-curve evidence stacking, not for full SCQA structure.”
↓ Two section dividers (p.23 and p.28) carry identical text and neither names the trend it introduces — pillars are invisible to the reader
55
opening
Quantum Technology Monitor 2021
“A solid, data-dense market monitor with disciplined action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a reference document not a story — use its individual analytical slides as title-writing exemplars, but not its overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening and no recommendation close — p.2 asks 'What is this document for?' and the deck ends on methodology (pp.41-44) with no 'so what / now what' slide