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 3 / 27
78
opening
2019 ccb investor day ba56d0e8
“A textbook investor-day deck with consultant-grade action titles and clean MECE business-line pillars, but reassurance-mode narrative and a generic closing — use the Home Lending section (pp.21-30) as the SCQA exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Closing slide p.48 ('We remain focused on executing against our strategy') is generic — no concrete asks, financial commitments, or 2020 milestones
76
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS MONITOR
“A thought-leadership research report with a strong counter-intuitive opening that gradually devolves into a topic-by-topic analytical dump with no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for hooks and section dividers, not for a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Six slides titled 'Concluding thoughts' (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) — repetitive, generic, and forfeit the chance to land the per-section punchline in the title
76
opening
State of Data 2023
“A solid IAB industry report with disciplined analytical action titles and strong upfront framing, but it inverts value-vs-how, lets the back half drift into topic labels, and ends in an appendix-plus-'Thank You' instead of a recommendation — use the front half (pp.4-23) as a Storymakers exemplar of thesis-first analytics, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ p47 closes with 'Thank You!' — no call to action, no recommendation, no 'what to do Monday morning'
76
opening
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
76
opening
Overview of the ASEAN-6 Automotive Market
“A disciplined market-atlas briefing with strong action titles and a front-loaded thesis, but it dissolves into a country tour and never closes the loop - useful as an exemplar of parallel country-profile structure and metric-led titles, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five case-study slides (p17, 21, 25, 29, 33) share a verbatim generic title - pure topic dump with no per-country insight
76
opening
2023 MS Conference Presentation
“A solid lead-with-the-answer investor deck for the first 11 slides that then dissolves into a 19-slide reference appendix — useful as a teaching example for thesis-first openings and peer-benchmark titling, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 60% of the deck (p.12-30) is appendix; the narrative effectively ends at p.11 with no recommendation or call-to-action slide
76
opening
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Presentation
“A textbook bank-earnings deck with a strong declarative opening but a tail-heavy, recommendation-free close — useful as a Storymakers example for action-title openings, not as a model for full narrative arc.”
↓ Segment slides p16-p20 use division names as titles instead of insight statements
76
opening
Deutsche Bank Q2 2023 Presentation
“A competent bank earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening but an analytical, tension-free middle and a near-absent close — useful as an example of declarative summary titles, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No Complication act — every callout reinforces 'momentum' and 'growth'; tensions (inflationary cost pressure p11, credit-loss upper-range guidance p12, litigation p37) are mentioned but never elevated into a narrative pivot
75
opening
Poverty Empowerment India
“Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.”
↓ p.14 'BACK UP' divider sits in the middle of the recommendation arc, not at the end — it fragments the resolution act
75
opening
Risk in review Managing risk from the front line
“Solid PwC thought-leadership deck with a real S->C->A->R spine and a clear thesis, but undermined by repetitive mid-deck benchmarks and topic-label section headers - useful as a teaching example for thesis-driven evidence stacking, not for crisp MECE pillaring or memorable closes.”
↓ Several adjacent slides repeat the same Front-Liner-vs-others benchmark structure (p.12, p.13, p.16, p.18) without escalating insight
75
opening
Semiconductor shortage: A different kind of trouble ahead
“A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9 contact, p.10 about us) dilute the recommendation — no quantified next steps or memorable closing visual
75
opening
South Africa Economic Outlook 2024 Turning short-term crises into opportunities for business value creation and societal
“Solid thematic-essay deck with disciplined action titles but no closing synthesis — useful as a teaching example for sentence-style titles, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis or explicit call-to-action — p.10 is a contacts page, not a 'so what' slide
75
opening
The Combustion Engine Business Model in the Age of Electromobility
“Solid analytical BCG-style build with strong action titles in the body, but it leads with topic-label summary slides and lacks a closing recommendation; use the scenario->strategy->archetype->value-matrix structure as a teaching example, not the executive bookends.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide; deck terminates on archetype analysis (p.13) and falls straight into front matter (p.14-16)
75
opening
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry benchmark report with above-average action titles and a brave answer-first opening, but it loses the narrative arc midway and ends in an analytical dump — useful as an exemplar of declarative titling and front-loaded thesis, not of full SCQA structure.”
↓ Closing collapses into 'Additional findings' (p.24) → appendix with no recap, no decision slide, and no memorable mic-drop
75
opening
2023 Ipsos Global Trends Report
“A well-crafted trends report with disciplined action titles and a strong opening hook, but it reads as an encyclopedia of twelve parallel chapters rather than a single argument — useful as a teaching example for chapter-level structure and title craft, not for overall narrative escalation or closing punch.”
↓ Twelve trend chapters of near-identical structure flatten the narrative — there is no escalation or ranking of which trends matter most for the reader
75
opening
ipsos global trends 2021 report
“A genuinely well-titled, MECE-structured trends report that earns its analytical middle but fumbles the close — use slides 18–46 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the ending.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what': the deck ends on a rhetorical question (p.50) and a corporate slide (p.51) — readers leave without an action
75
opening
07 investorupdate2018 pc
“A competent investor-update deck with a thesis-up-front opening and quantified support, but flat pillar structure and several topic-label titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3-4 and the quantified callouts as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ Several pure topic-label titles — p.8 'Corporate & Institutional Clients', p.12 'Loan portfolio', p.19 'Financial targets', p.20 'Key messages' — squander the action-title slot
74
opening
Green by Default
“Well-structured Accenture thought-leadership report with clear MECE pillars and several sharp action titles — use the sectioning (p.15/20/25) and insight-title examples (p.4, p.5, p.10) as teaching exemplars, but flag the repeated generic recommendation titles and soft closing as common pitfalls to avoid.”
↓ Three identical generic titles 'Practical considerations to help your business make a start' on p.19, p.24, p.29 — insight-free and undifferentiated
74
opening
The disability inclusion imperative
“A well-evidenced thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and clean pillar rhythm, but it labels rather than argues in its titles and fizzles into inspiration instead of a concrete call to action — use the business-case section (p.10-17) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the whole deck.”
↓ Three separate slides (p.3, p.4, p.36) reuse the generic title 'The disability inclusion imperative' — title repetition signals topic labeling, not action titling
74
opening
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q2 2023
“A competent investor-survey readout with a strong answer-first opening and good action titles in the middle, but it is a data report, not a story — use p.3-5 and p.12 as teaching examples of front-loaded insight, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for executives' slide — deck ends at p.16 (ESG caveat) then falls into seven appendix data tables (p.17-23) and contact info
74
opening
Holiday Season Insights How did retail apparel promotions perform in 2019?
“A competent analyst-first POV piece with strong action titles and quantitative spine, but the recommendation is underbuilt and the closing slot is handed to a capabilities pitch - use pp.4-11 as a teaching example for answer-first thesis and declarative titles, not as a model for the resolution act.”
↓ Three near-duplicate context/cover slides (pp.1, 2, 3, plus p.14) inflate front/back matter and delay the payoff
74
opening
2019 am investor day ba56d0e8
“A competent investor-day strategy showcase with a clear three-pillar spine and quantified proof, but it skips the Complication and fumbles the close — useful as an exemplar of pillar tagging and metric-led titles, not of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never names a problem, threat, or 'why now', so it is proof without provocation
74
opening
20240220 Barclays FY2023 Results and Investor Update Presentation
“A disciplined IR/strategy hybrid with a genuine MECE pillar spine and mostly insight-bearing titles, but bloated by per-division template repetition and duplicate book-ends — use the FY23 results run (pp.4-24) and the SBMB framework as exemplars, not the 145-page whole.”
↓ 145 pages with heavy repetition — each division repeats the same SBMB template (e.g. pp.100-103, pp.108-114, pp.119-122), so momentum stalls after the first division
74
opening
20230215 Barclays FY22 Results Presentation
“A thesis-first bank earnings deck with strong action titles in the core build but no complication, no MECE spine, and a non-existent close — use the title-writing in p.6-11 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution slide — p.21 'Outlook' is a topic label, not a commitment or recommendation