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 29 / 31
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
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
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
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)
35
opening
Re-Imagine the Possible 2018/2019
“A topic-organized budget walkthrough with strong numerical content but weak narrative scaffolding — useful as a teaching example of how MECE pillars and quantitative anchors are necessary but not sufficient without action titles and an explicit thesis.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is cover/agenda/divider/divider/framework with no stated point of view
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
35
opening
Simple & Digital Customer Experience Model
“A conceptual framework walkthrough on NPS/CX with strong individual action titles in the analytical middle but no narrative arc, no opening thesis, and no closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (pp.5, 9, 13), not for deck structure.”
↓ Opening five slides contain zero thesis statement - two covers plus three framework intros
35
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS INDEX 2023
“A well-templated annual reference report from a research firm - useful as a navigable data catalogue but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and missing SCQA arc.”
↓ Zero action titles in 35 slides - every per-profession page (pp.15-32) is templated as 'Trust in X by country', burying the finding
35
opening
API Trends
“A short trend-briefing deck with decent data points but no narrative spine — useful as a counter-example showing how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act flatten a story into a list.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1-3 establish context but never name a Complication or Question, so the audience has no reason to lean in
35
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL ADVISOR Global Perceptions of Healthcare
“A competently executed survey-results report that mistakes a question-by-question data walk for a narrative — useful as a counter-example of how repeating the survey question as the slide title kills any Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: zero Complication or Resolution slides — the deck is 9 consecutive analyze_data pages with no synthesis
35
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL HEALTH SERVICE MONITOR 2023
“A competently structured survey-monitor report — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it labels topics instead of arguing a thesis and ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — deck ends on a methodology page (p.44) and a brand slide (p.45)
35
opening
Trends & AI in the Contact Center
“A competent survey-plus-capabilities deck with strong data callouts but a weak story spine — use its quantified pull-quotes as a teaching example, not its structure or titles.”
↓ Six near-identical section dividers (pp.2,4,6,8,10,12) eat ~20% of the deck without differentiating pillars — dividers should be MECE, not refrains
35
opening
Ipsos global trustworthiness index 2023
“A well-structured data reference report but a weak Storymakers exemplar — use pp.4/10/14 as an example of clean sectioning, but not as a model for narrative, titling, or close.”
↓ No thesis slide — pp.1-4 are cover/TOC/intro/divider with zero insight asserted before data begins on p.5
35
opening
ey future of work 20 10
“A capabilities brochure dressed as a point of view — useful as a counter-example of how repeated taglines and noun-phrase titles erase a deck's narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides (p.4, p.6, p.7, p.8, p.9 and the callouts on p.5, p.10, p.11) repeat the identical 'Operate in two gears…' string, collapsing differentiation between sections
35
opening
wipoapiday2023 o neill
“A competent Gartner-style trends briefing with quantified data and a recognizable framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is an analytical dump that lacks thesis, recommendation, and close — useful for teaching action-title rewrites, not narrative architecture.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck never tells the audience what to do with the trend data (no 'recommendation' or 'next_steps' slide type appears).
35
opening
mi gtia
“A well-organized JPMorgan reference guide with parallel country structure and solid data, but a textbook example of an analytical-dump deck with topic-label titles and no SCQA arc — useful as a counter-example for Storymakers training, not as an exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck never tells the audience what to believe or do about Asia
35
opening
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
32
opening
PwC’s MSME Survey 2020 Building to Last
“A topic-organised survey report dressed as a deck — strong on evidence, case studies and quoted statistics, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it never leads with an answer, lets question-style titles do the work that insight titles should, and ends on a technology tangent instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first opening — the thesis is buried until the 'Headline survey findings' on pp.11-12, and even those are not declarative single-sentence claims
32
opening
Risk Management as a catalyst for growth
“An awards-ceremony deck dressed as a thought-leadership piece — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and sponsor-driven sectioning suppress an otherwise defensible argument; not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the opening — the cover promises 'Risk Management as a catalyst for growth' but slides 1-9 deliver only logistics and a textbook definition; the 'catalyst' claim is never substantiated