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
726 matching · page 28 / 31
40
opening
Essity Barclays Consumer Staples Conference 2017 tcm339 48081
“A standard investor-conference company overview with a predictable spine but topic-label titles and no narrative tension — use it to teach what to avoid (noun-phrase titles, buried thesis, redundant 'Summary' pages), not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no stakes or thesis — the point is buried until p.9-10
38
opening
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
38
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Philippines
“A competent country-profile excerpt from a regional atlas with good action-title discipline on the data slides, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 3, 4 and 6 as teaching cases for quantified action titles, and use the whole chapter as a counter-example of an analytical tour that never commits to an SCQA arc or recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA or recommendation anywhere — the chapter is pure atlas, with p.2 'Country overview' as a topic label rather than a question or complication
38
opening
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
38
opening
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A competent Deloitte Insights trends report with solid per-section rhythm and data discipline, but structurally a topic anthology that opens slowly, closes flat, and lets six 'just the number' placeholder titles slip through — use the intra-section frame→data→case→recommend pattern as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ Six slides carry titles that are just the trend number ('03' on pp.11, 29, 31, 33; '04' on pp.39, 42) — the single biggest Storymakers violation in the deck.
38
opening
Doing business in the Philippines 2021
“A well-researched Philippines investment-reference document dressed as a consulting deck — strong on data density and section navigation, but topic-ordered rather than argument-ordered, so use it as an example of what to avoid when teaching Storymakers action titles and closing acts.”
↓ No answer-first framing — the document never states a recommendation or decision it is trying to drive; the closest thing is the preface platitude on p.3
38
opening
Digital Transformation NJ
“A credentials-led government capabilities pitch with strong case-study evidence but no SCQA arc, no NJ thesis, and a «Thank you» ending — useful as a teaching example of why action titles and a closing recommendation matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No NJ-specific thesis or stakes anywhere in the first five slides — opens with Deloitte's credentials (p.2) instead of the client's situation
38
opening
Chilean Hydrogen Pathway
“Competent analytical build with strong title-writing in the Chile-business-case core, but it buries its 25 GW recommendation mid-deck and ends in a numbered initiative dump - useful as a teaching example for data-bearing action titles, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide in the first 5 pages; the thesis (slide 46) lands at ~70% depth
38
opening
MTA Financial Impact COVID-19
“A methodologically rigorous McKinsey forecast deck with strong precedent framing and a MECE revenue/cost spine, but it buries the $8.5B answer until p.33 and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for scenario analysis structure, not for Storymakers opening or action-title craft.”
↓ Buries the answer: the $8.5B total impact does not appear until p.33 of 38; opening is two disclaimers + cover + TOC with no executive summary
38
opening
Five global shifts megatrends
“A well-organized PwC point-of-view survey with disciplined parallel pillars but a buried thesis, recycled titles, and no call to action — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five identical 'Possible implications…' titles (p.6/10/14/18/22) — pure topic labels that waste the most-read line on every other slide
38
opening
eReadiness 2023 Survey
“A well-titled, well-segmented research dump from Strategy& that demonstrates excellent action-title craft in the analytical body but buries its recommendation under 76 pages of evidence - use the consumer chapters as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Answer is buried: 5 recommendations land on p.79-80 after 76 pages of analysis, and both slides share the identical action title - the 'so what' gets ~2.5% of the page budget
38
opening
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025
“A solid annual-outlook reference deck with disciplined action titles on data pages, but the architecture is a topic dump rather than an argument — use the macro slides (p.12-p.30) as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not the deck-level structure.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — slides 1-7 are all methodology and credentialing, so a reader has to wait until p.9 to see the headline 'Resetting expectations, refocusing inward, recharging growth'.
38
opening
Charging Ahead Australia’s battery powered future
“This is an Accenture capabilities/credentials deck dressed as a research report — structurally tidy but narratively flat, with a context-heavy open and a case-study close; useful as an example of section-divider hygiene and MECE frameworks, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is pure decarbonization context, never states the answer (pp.1-5)
38
opening
Digital Revolution Awards
“A two-part thought-leadership compendium with strong callouts and a few sharp action titles in the first half, but absent thesis, broken pillar promise, and a missing recommendation make it unfit as a Storymakers exemplar — mine individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call to action — deck ends at p.36 on the Bain logo with no synthesis slide
38
opening
Banking and capital markets trends 2020: Laying the foundations for growth
“A reference catalog masquerading as a deck — useful as a topic checklist for an internal audit team but a poor Storymakers exemplar; cite it only as a counter-example of how topic-labels and pagination suffixes erase narrative.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 88 slides and not one declarative finding in the title bar
38
opening
ey ivca monthly pe vc roundup february 2023
“A competent monthly data roundup that is structurally a reference document, not a story — useful as an example of clean section dividers and metric-led callouts, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis-led opening, no Complication-Resolution arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or outlook close — deck ends in EY service marketing (p.26–31) and contacts, abandoning the reader after the data
38
opening
Fresenius SE 2023 06 13 14 Goldman Sachs 44th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
“A standard corporate IR deck with disciplined callouts and one strong transformation thesis (ReSet→ReVitalize) that is buried on p.18 and never re-asserted at close — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label dividers and an appendix-heavy tail dilute an otherwise defensible narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.18 — first 5 slides are cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider/generic context with no stakes or answer-first framing
38
opening
GSBD Investor Presentation Q1 2023 vF
“A standard BDC earnings/reference deck — competent as financial disclosure but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titling and missing narrative acts.”
↓ Zero action titles across 14 slides — every title is a noun label (e.g. 'Quarterly Balance Sheet', 'Debt'), forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
38
opening
3Q23 Investor Presentation GS
“A classic IR/positioning deck structured as a capabilities tour — strong quantified callouts and solid competitive benchmarks, but no SCQA arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles dominate; use p7–p10 as a teaching example of competitive benchmarking, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution — deck never poses the question it is answering, and never lands a recommendation or ask
38
opening
barclays global credit bureau forum v30
“Competent investor-day roadshow with strong slide-level quantified titles inside each segment, but no overarching narrative spine or closing synthesis — use the mid-section analytical build-ups (Ascend p.26, Verify p.29–30, Serasa p.50–60) as teaching examples of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck leads with agenda/CFO Q&A instead of an answer-first insight
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
35
opening
Introduction to A&M Services in Asia
“A standard firm-capabilities brochure organized by practice area — useful as an anti-example of 'no SCQA, no close' and of topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck never poses a client Question, so there is no Answer to build toward; it is an undifferentiated service catalog
35
opening
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2
“A dense, methodologically rigorous reference pack of ~13 defense-efficiency initiatives with strong per-initiative build-up but no global narrative spine — use the inner initiative templates (e.g., car-pool pp.193–228 or category-management pp.54–82) as teaching examples of structured analytical build, not the overall deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary or total-potential slide anywhere in the first 8 pages — the deck has no global answer-first opening, just TOCs (p.2–8) before jumping into Initiative 1 on p.9.
35
opening
The Shopping Centre Handbook 4.0
“A competent Spanish retail-real-estate market handbook whose analytical middle is usable as a teaching example for KPI-page cadence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: topic-label titles, no call to action, and an S→A→A structure that ends on observation rather than resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere — the 'What is Next?' section (pp 26-30) ends on description, then the deck closes with a team bio (p 31)