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 3 / 31
78
opening
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
78
opening
Towards the unified secondary market: The evolution of distribution channels and evaluation of Asset Tokenization Benefi
“A competent EY thought-leadership deck with a strong analytical middle and a quantified opening, but it ends as a service pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension-building, not for closing structure.”
↓ Four 'Content' dividers (p.6, p.10, p.12, p.18) labeled identically — wasted opportunity to name MECE pillars
78
opening
IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT 2025
“A research report dressed as a deck -- exemplary executive-summary craft in p.5-9, but the body is an atlas of survey tables and the close evaporates into methodology, so use the opening as a teaching example and the body as a counter-example.”
↓ Body slides p.11-49 are repetitive topic-titled data tables ('...by Country' / '...by Generation') with no action titles surfacing the insight
78
opening
2022 ANNUAL RESULTS
“Disciplined earnings/investor deck with a clean MECE three-pillar build and mostly strong action titles; useful as a teaching example for opening-with-the-answer and title discipline, but not a Storymakers SCQA exemplar - it has no real complication and ends in a thank-you, not a takeaway.”
↓ Several financial slides default to topic-label titles ('REVENUE BREAKDOWN BY REGION' p.4, 'CHANGE IN OPERATING MARGIN' p.10, 'DEBT BY MATURITY' p.13) instead of stating what the chart proves
78
opening
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action
78
opening
February Macro Brief
“A well-titled, thesis-opened macro periodical that functions as a chart-pack briefing rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.1-22 as a teaching example of opening + regional MECE, but the 40-slide indicator tail and missing recommendation make the full deck a weak structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing/recommendation act — deck dies on p.62 bond-yield chart and p.63 team bio; the capex thesis is never re-landed for the executive reader
78
opening
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
78
opening
Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional
“A well-opened, well-quantified problem statement that abdicates its own conclusion — use slides 1-7 as a teaching example for stakes-setting and action titles, but not as a complete Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.10 asks 'What will it take to improve productivity?' but the deck ends without answering
78
opening
2nd Global Crypto M&A and Fundraising Report
“A well-structured PwC industry report with a strong BLUF and MECE pillars but topic-labeled chart titles and a marketing-pitch close — useful as a teaching example for opening discipline and section structure, not for action-title craft or narrative resolution.”
↓ Action titles abandoned in the analytical body — p.7-21 default to topic labels like 'Crypto Fundraising Deal Count by Sector'
78
opening
Women in Work Index 2019
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with disciplined action titles and a quantified hook, but it ends as a data reference rather than a call to action — use slides 5, 6, 14, 23 as Storymakers exemplars for action-title craft, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Resolution is under-built: only 2 slides (p.29 'five foundations', p.30 process diagram) carry the entire 'so what should we do' load after 25 slides of analysis
78
opening
Achieving Supply Chain Resilience in a Volatile World
“A tight, disciplined executive perspective with a recognizable S→C→A→R arc, but the recommendation fizzles — useful as a teaching example for compact narrative structure, not for how to land a close.”
↓ p.9 recommendation title ends in a colon ('...policies that:') — the deck's punchline is effectively a setup line, not a resolution
78
opening
Artificial Intelligence: Ready to Ride the Wave?
“A polished BCG executive-perspectives deck with strong action titles and a clear opening thesis, but it ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation — use pp.3-4 and pp.14-20 as Storymakers exemplars for opening and action titles, not for closing structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck drifts from p.20 recommendation straight into appendix deep-dives with no 'next 90 days' or CTA
78
opening
What’s the future of generative AI? An early view in 15 charts
“A polished McKinsey explainer with strong action titles and a clear opening, but structured as a chart roundup rather than an SCQA argument — useful as a teaching example for title craft and lead-with-the-answer, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.16-17 macro sizing and a logo page (p.18), with no recommendation or 'what to do Monday' slide
78
opening
Surveyed nurses consider leaving direct patient care at elevated rates
“A well-titled analytical research brief with a strong opening hook but no real recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for SCQA story arc.”
↓ Closing is effectively absent — p.11's one-sentence recommendation is generic and disclaimer-styled, p.12 is bios
78
opening
wai ipsos innovation misperception epidemic
“A thesis-forward research note that lands its hook in the first two slides but then devolves into a data tour with no recommendation — use p.1-2 as a teaching example of strong openings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.13 demographics/usage table and then two 'About' bios (p.14-15) with zero recommendations
78
opening
ey global economic outlook july 2023
“A polished, title-driven analytical brief with exemplary action titles and a clean thesis-first open - use it as a teaching example for title craft, but not for narrative arc, since it dissolves into a contributor bio instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation - the deck ends on a regional slide (p30 Africa) and a contributor bio (p32) instead of a 'what this means for you' slide
78
opening
ey global ipo trends q4 2019
“Competent regional market-update deck with a clear thesis up front and a strong rhetorical close, but undermined by lazy repeated topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide - use the quote-slide openers as a teaching example, not the analytical pages.”
↓ Workhorse analytical slides reuse identical topic-label titles ('Global IPO market insight' x3, 'Asia-Pacific IPO market insight' x3, 'Europe, Middle East, India and Africa IPO market insight' x3) - every one of those should carry the slide's specific insight
78
opening
article thebeatmar2025
“A monthly market chartbook with a strong answer-first opening and ~15 well-titled thesis slides, but the back half is an unstructured data reference with no closing recommendation — use slides 3-17 as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a correlation table (p.51) and team bio (p.54), never restating or evolving the Top 4 Ideas from p.4
78
opening
2024 icc men’s t20 world cup economic impact report
“A competent answer-first economic-impact report with strong action titles and a clean two-pillar structure, but it lacks a Complication and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-led openings, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck dribbles to an end at p.29 with a media-value stat, then a disclaimer
78
opening
Eyepoint Goldman Sachs June 10 2025
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong quantified action titles on the data slides but a weak complication and a duplicated section spine — use p.20-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (p.15 and p.22 both titled 'Phase 2 VERONA Clinical Trial in DME') signal a broken or copy-pasted spine, not MECE pillars
78
opening
2022 international consumer growth initiatives investor day
“A tight, well-titled investor-day excerpt that opens with the answer but trails off into M&A housekeeping; useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified claims, not for full-deck narrative architecture.”
↓ No Complication slide — jumps from 'opportunity' to 'we are investing' without articulating why now or what risk forces the move
78
opening
2022 commercial banking investor day
“Polished investor-day deck with strong action titles and a clean opening/closing thesis pair, but missing an explicit Complication and pillar signposting — use the title craft and closing pages as exemplars, not the overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Duplicate title on p.11 and p.16 ('Focused, strategic investments to capture organic growth...') signals a structural fault — either redundancy or unclear pillar boundaries
78
opening
1Q24 GTM update 3.01.24 Jackson
“A polished JPM market-outlook chartbook with exemplary action-title writing and a clean macro-to-recommendation arc, but missing MECE dividers and a real call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure — 18 consecutive 'analyze_data' slides risk reading as a chartbook dump
78
opening
20240220 Barclays FY2023 FI Call Slides
“A competent IR deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified analytical spine, but it lacks a complication act and trails into Q&A without a closing recommendation — use p.3-8 and p.13-14 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends at p.19 rating target, then Q&A/appendix/disclaimer, so the 'so what' never gets restated