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 22 / 27
48
opening
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
48
opening
KPMG global tech report 2024
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong stat-anchored mid-section titles and a real conclusion+CTA arc, but it organizes findings instead of telling a story — useful as an example of pillar discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: p.1-5 are cover, TOC, foreword, methodology, and a teaser before the first insight slide at p.7
48
opening
Accenture Post and Parcel Industry Research 2019
“A solid industry thought-leadership report with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts, but weak Storymakers exemplar overall — use sections 1–2 as a model for action titles and MECE build, not as a template for opening and close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 3–5 pages — reader must reach p.21 '5 SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES DETERMINE HIGH PERFORMANCE' to find the organizing answer
48
opening
ey e book the green transition
“A competently structured EY thought-leadership trilogy with clean MECE pillars and quantified analysis, but it reads as three parallel essays with a topic-labelled opening and a slide literally titled 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for sectional build-up and recommendation slides, not for answer-first narrative or memorable closes.”
↓ No answer-first opening: the executive summary at p2 ('Addressing the climate crisis and accelerating the green transition') is a topic restatement, not a thesis — readers must wait to p5 for the first real claim
48
opening
QDEL JPM 2024 Presentation vfinal 010824 9 am PT
“Competent JPM-conference investor deck with a clean three-pillar build and a bookended 'Focused Path' recap, but it skips the Complication, leans on topic-label titles in key slots, and trails off into 'Thank you' — useful as a title-craft example for the Savanna and synergy slides, not as an overall narrative arc exemplar.”
↓ No Complication act: the deck never names a problem, market threat, or competitive tension, so SCQA collapses to S→A→R.
48
opening
fd4b1c5071718761657e3d9fd9dec1092cda8949
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong data-led brand titles in the middle act, but it skips the Complication, breaks its own 5-pillar promise, and bookends with one-word titles — useful as a teaching example for action-titled brand slides (pp.13-18, p.23), not for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication: nowhere in pp.4-11 is a problem, threat, or competitive tension named, so the strategic priorities (p.6) feel asserted rather than earned.
45
opening
2022 Global Alternative Fund Survey
“A competently-titled survey report that delivers data point-by-point but has no opening thesis and no closing recommendation — useful as a benchmark for action-title craft on individual pages, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — the deck ends at p.48 on an ESG data point and cuts to contacts, violating the R in SCQA/S→C→A→R
45
opening
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
45
opening
Moving Laggards Early Adopters
“Solid mid-tier McKinsey explainer with a strong analytical middle and a clear three-part recommendation, but it buries the thesis behind a generic problem-overview opener and fades into a 'Thank You' close — useful as a teaching example for analytical action titles, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ Duplicated/topic-label titles in the opening (pp.3-4 share 'Overview of Challenges with Technology Implementation in Manufacturing'); no thesis appears in the first 5 slides
45
opening
Project Management: Improving performance, reducing risk
“A competently-structured awareness deck for a board audience that uses question-based section dividers well but reads as a topic walkthrough rather than an argument — useful as a teaching example of how clear section spines do not by themselves produce a Storymakers narrative when action titles and a synthesized close are missing.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the thesis is delayed until p.10 and never restated as a single declarative claim
45
opening
Merging with SPAC
“A competent client-education primer on SPAC mechanics with a strong opening market block but no thesis and no close — use slides 4-10 and 34 as teaching examples of action titles, and use the rest as a cautionary case in how topic-dump structure and '(cont'd)' titles erode a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Eleven slides reuse '(cont'd)' as their title (p.17-19, 21, 25, 27-29, 41, 47, 49, 51-53) — built for the speaker, not the reader, a Storymakers cardinal sin
45
opening
Bike Sharing 5.0
“Solid analytical industry study with metric-rich declarative titles, but it is a Roland Berger 'overview' rather than a Storymakers argument - useful as an example of clean data titling, not as a model for opening hooks, MECE pillars, or recommendation closes.”
↓ p.2 'executive summary' restates the deck's purpose ('this study provides a comprehensive overview') instead of leading with the answer - a Storymakers cardinal sin
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
APAC Family Office Study
“A competent thought-leadership study with strong analytical-section action titles but a weak narrative spine - useful as a teaching example for action titles and pull-quotes, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Opening trio (p.1-3) is pure front matter - no thesis, no stakes, no hook before p.5
45
opening
Lloyd’s and Bermuda
“A competent analytical talk-deck with a strong middle (quantified action titles, well-built reserving and rate-hardening story) but a definitional opening and a hand-wave ending — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analysis slides, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no thesis or stakes — reader doesn't know the question being answered until ~p.11
45
opening
EY Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but template-driven oral-proposal deck whose three-phase spine is reusable, but whose topic-label titles and missing thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'before' case for retitling exercises.”
↓ Action titles are topic labels, not insights — 'Timeline', 'Lessons learned', 'Examples of measures', 'Phase one/two/three' force the audience to read the body to learn anything
45
opening
The Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brands Index
“A competently structured research-findings deck with two pockets of strong action-title craft (pp.21–24) but no SCQA arc, no answer-first opening, and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean chaptering and isolated action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No answer-first opening — five slides of cover/TOC/methodology before any finding (p.9 is the first insight)
45
opening
Our life with AI: The reality of today and the promise of tomorrow
“A well-evidenced public-opinion research report with elegant chapter framing but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence/callout pairing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are poetic topic labels not insights — 'The promise of tomorrow.', 'Around the corner.', 'A generation away.' force the reader to decode each chart
45
opening
IPSOS LOVE LIFE SATISFACTION 2025
“A competent research-findings deck with several strong action titles in the back half, but it is structured as a data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of good callouts, not of arc construction.”
↓ Slides 4-6 reuse the verbatim survey-question wording as titles, abdicating the action-title responsibility
45
opening
CCPC INVESTMENTS RESEARCH
“A competent survey-readout deck with strong declarative chart titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' is sparse with no synthesized thesis — wastes the highest-attention slot in the deck
45
opening
Captive Insurance Guide
“A competent educational primer that reads as a topic-ordered brochure rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for how topic titles and an appendix-heavy close drain persuasive force.”
↓ Every section title is a noun phrase — 'Structures', 'Key players', 'Lifecycle' — none carries an insight or recommendation
45
opening
The generative AI advantage in financial services
“A serviceable thought-leadership PDF with one strong action title and disciplined callouts, but structurally a topic-dump that buries its thesis and ends in a vendor pitch — useful as a teaching example of weak openings and noun-titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening is dead weight — p.1 cover + p.2 generic 'Introduction' burn two of the deck's ten pages without establishing stakes or thesis
45
opening
Lazard LCOE+
“A polished annual reference report with strong MECE pillar structure but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for parallel-section design and sensitivity tables, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opens cold: cover → TOC → divider → three 'Executive Summary—...' topic-label slides (pp.1-6) before any insight surfaces
45
opening
Executive Compensation at Deloitte Delivering global insight and expertise
“A competent capabilities brochure with a few strong benchmarking action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is mid-tier — useful to teach title-writing in the middle section, not to teach narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No complication or 'so what' — the deck presents market facts (p.3-7) without telling the reader why these trends threaten or pressure them