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
635 matching · page 21 / 27
50
opening
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
“A competent Ipsos research deliverable with strong data discipline but weak narrative craft — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closing structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slide titles are survey questions, not insights — p.30 'Q. My country's national labour market' should read something like 'Views on labour-market impact split nearly 50/50, with sharpest negativity in Türkiye and Hungary'
50
opening
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent annual sustainability report with credible KPIs but topic-label titles and no SCQA spine — useful as a 'how to surface impact numbers' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Duplicate titles on pp.6–7 ('Key programmes helping us deliver on our corporate sustainability goals:') reveal the lack of distinct, MECE narrative pillars
50
opening
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
50
opening
4th edition eReadiness 2023
“A strong research-report exemplar with disciplined action titles and clean MECE segmentation, but a weak Storymakers arc — buries a 2-slide recommendation at the end of 70 pages of analysis; use the analytical title-writing as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendations compressed to just 2 of 83 slides (pp.79-80) and both carry the identical generic title — the 'so what' is essentially unwritten
50
opening
2015 Fintech New York Partnerships
“A short marketing/thought-leadership brief with solid data-driven titles on two slides but no narrative spine or recommendation — use p.3 and p.5 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis stated in the first 3 slides — the cover promises 'Partnerships, Platforms and Open Innovation' but those three pillars never organize the body
50
opening
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A credible trend-survey report mis-cast as a deck — useful as a cautionary example of how strong evidence and good callouts can still fail Storymakers when titles are topic labels and the closing is a URL.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on a blockchain chart (p.16) and a URL (p.17)
50
opening
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
50
opening
ey global ipo trends 2023 q2 v1
“A competently structured EY educational primer with a 5W1H spine and a service pitch tail — useful as a teaching example of MECE topic coverage, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with questions instead of answers and closes on credentials instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are nouns or questions throughout (pp.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) — the deck never tells you the answer in the title bar
50
opening
morgan stanley conference slides
“Investor-conference status briefing with topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for action-title coaching, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide: a reader of the action titles alone cannot answer 'what is Northern Trust IT's argument?'
50
opening
NCM SNCM Y 2022 SNCMP
“A client-meeting status update built backwards — solution-first then evidence-dump, ending without a recommendation; use the action-titled streaming-data slides (p.44-46, p.56) as a teaching example, but treat the overall structure as a counter-example for SCQA.”
↓ Closes with a data table (p.62 'Quick Fade of Top Movies') and a thank-you slide — no recommendation, no next steps, no ask
50
opening
Goldman Sachs Presentation Final
“A competent investor-conference deck with a strong analytical mid-section but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — use slides 7-12 as a mini exemplar of action-title + callout discipline, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides; p.3 'U.S. Bancorp' is a topic label where a point-of-view slide should be
50
opening
PR Barclays Presentation 9.06.22 FINAL Update
“A competent investor-pitch deck with rigorous quantitative evidence but a weak narrative scaffold — useful as an example of strong financial pillars and supporting callouts, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening, MECE structure, or closing.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages — the merger rationale is buried at p6 behind disclaimers and bios
50
opening
230911 mexico ir presentation
“A competent IR briefing with decent action titles and MECE scaffolding but no narrative tension and no close — use pp. 4–6 and 8–9 as examples of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA or answer-first opener — the first substantive slide (p.4) asserts generic 'opportunities' rather than stating the investment thesis
50
opening
Barclays Bank PLC FY24 Client Information
“A credit-investor fact pack with solid evidence and a few strong action titles, but no narrative spine — useful as a reference artefact, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck has a Situation (p.2) but no Complication, Question, or Answer; it is a reference document, not a narrative
50
opening
mercury rising
“A polished thought-leadership trends report with strong callouts and evidence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a teaching case for analytical-survey decks that miss the answer-first opening and recommendation-led close — use the callout craft, not the structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the foreword/exec-summary pairing (pp.3–4) defers the thesis instead of leading with it
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
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
The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight (7th Edition)
“A competent BCG industry-insights report with strong data-bearing action titles, but narratively it is an analytical dump without an SCQA resolution — use pp.9, 11, 14, 18 as teaching examples for action-title quality, not the overall structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide: thesis only hinted at on p.6 after 5 front-matter/context pages
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
48
opening
Technology Trust Ethics Preparing the workforce for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI: C-suite perspectives
“A competent survey-findings report with strong stat-led slide titles but weak narrative architecture — useful as a teaching example for action titles at the slide level, not for deck-level Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never states why ethical AI readiness is urgent or what goes wrong without it
48
opening
GEM Outlook 2021-2025 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC market-outlook research deck with disciplined action titles but no recommendation arc - useful as a Storymakers exemplar for slide-level title craft and benchmark framing, not for opening hook, Act-3 payoff, or closing call-to-action.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide: deck ends p.31 -> appendix -> 'Thank you.' (p.34) with zero implications for an HK operator or advertiser
48
opening
GEM Outlook 2023-2027 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC outlook report with above-average action-title craft in the segment sections, but it reads as an analytical inventory rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides 9, 13, 17, 20 as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 02 → 04 (no section 03), signalling either lost content or a sloppy bolt-on of the GenAI module
48
opening
TEF Application Evaluation 2019
“Solid descriptive evaluation report with strong insight-bearing analysis titles, but it lacks SCQA tension and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative architecture.”
↓ No resolution or call-to-action — the deck ends mid-analysis on p.27 ('ALL 36 STATES AND THE FCT WERE REPRESENTED…') and rolls straight into the appendix
48
opening
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide