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
89 matching · page 4 / 4
50
opening
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent annual sustainability report with credible KPIs but topic-label titles and no SCQA spine — useful as a 'how to surface impact numbers' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Duplicate titles on pp.6–7 ('Key programmes helping us deliver on our corporate sustainability goals:') reveal the lack of distinct, MECE narrative pillars
50
opening
NCM SNCM Y 2022 SNCMP
“A client-meeting status update built backwards — solution-first then evidence-dump, ending without a recommendation; use the action-titled streaming-data slides (p.44-46, p.56) as a teaching example, but treat the overall structure as a counter-example for SCQA.”
↓ Closes with a data table (p.62 'Quick Fade of Top Movies') and a thank-you slide — no recommendation, no next steps, no ask
48
opening
Technology Trust Ethics Preparing the workforce for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI: C-suite perspectives
“A competent survey-findings report with strong stat-led slide titles but weak narrative architecture — useful as a teaching example for action titles at the slide level, not for deck-level Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never states why ethical AI readiness is urgent or what goes wrong without it
48
opening
Breaking Records Everything Brands needs to know to breakthrough and dominate the Chinese Market in 2024
“A boutique-agency pitch wearing a McKinsey label — has pillar scaffolding and a clever verbal bookend, but topic-labeled titles and a buried recommendation make it a useful teaching example of where a deck loses its Storymakers spine, not an exemplar to imitate.”
↓ Thesis is buried — first 5 slides establish context (¥13tn, $3.565tn, value-share chart) but never state what the audience should do; opening fails the 'lead with the answer' test
48
opening
modern retirement monthly report en
“A polished UBS client-education guidebook with strong MECE lifecycle pillars but weak SCQA narrative and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for framework-driven structure, not for Storymakers storytelling.”
↓ No SCQA arc — deck never frames a complication; it jumps from 'why' (p.4) to framework (p.5) to lifecycle education with no tension to resolve
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
45
opening
Capgemini Group Presentation 2022
“A competent corporate brochure deck with an elegant three-pillar spine and a clever linked-title device, but not a Storymakers exemplar — it delivers identity, not argument, and should be used to teach pillar architecture and title chaining rather than narrative arc or calls to action.”
↓ No SCQA: there is no Complication or Question — the deck moves straight from 'who we are' (p.3) to 'what we do' without naming a client problem
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
2020 Effie UK Report • In partnership withIpsos
“A competently structured industry-report deck with strong action titles and good evidence pairing, but it never leads with the answer and ends in a contact card — use its title craft and case-pairing rhythm as the teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis upfront: p.4 and p.40 are both labelled 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' but neither callout reveals a synthesised answer — the deck never tells you in one sentence what the 2020 effectiveness story is.
45
opening
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible
45
opening
enhaced data extraction using gen ai ey collaboration with wlastic
“A research-paper-styled EY/Elastic case study with a real quantitative payoff buried under topic-label titles and a vacuous conclusion — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and a closing 'R' should fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Seven consecutive slides titled 'Use case implementation evaluation (Cont'd)' (p.8–13) — the canonical anti-pattern for action titles and section structure
42
opening
AFF 2023 HKTDC and PwC’s Joint Pulse Survey
“A competently structured survey-readout deck with strong data-bearing action titles but a weak opening and label-style dividers — useful as an example of slide-level action titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening hook or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening is wasted: cover → generic 'Introduction' (p.2) → topic divider (p.3); the thesis is never stated up front
42
opening
rmb morgan stanley conference quilter september 2019
“Competent investor-conference update with a clean three-pillar spine but missing the Complication and a real close — useful as an example of pillar structure and callout discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the problem the strategy is solving, so 'Business initiatives' (p10-14) feel like activities rather than answers
42
opening
goldman sachs dec 2023 final 12 5 23
“A competent investor-conference update with a strong closing thesis and solid peer-benchmark titles, but the front half buries the answer and the growth pillars aren't MECE-framed — use p.5-7 and p.12 as title-quality exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening three content slides (p.3 'Overview', p.4 'financial performance detail') bury the lede — no thesis until p.13
38
opening
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
28
opening
REINVENTION WITH GENERATIVE AI: CalPERS
“A capabilities-and-education primer dressed as a client deck — useful as a teaching example of clean case-study slides (p.17–20) but a cautionary tale on story arc, since the client and the recommendation are both buried until the last two pages.”
↓ CalPERS — the named client — does not appear in the narrative until p.24, turning a client deck into a generic GenAI capabilities primer
25
opening
Deloitte SEA CFO Forum Southeast Asia Business Outlook
“A services brochure dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example of how a parallel-pillar capabilities dump fails the Storymakers tests (no SCQA, topic-label titles, firm-first opening, contacts-page ending), not as an exemplar to emulate.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis: the deck never names a Complication the CFO should care about, so every services block arrives unmotivated