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
146 matching · page 4 / 7
62
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2020 At full velocity: Resilient and racing ahead
“A solid industry research report with textbook action titles in its analytical core (p12–p60) but front-loaded with methodology, weak on an explicit recommendation, and tailing into a repetitive country appendix — use the sector-analysis middle as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The country section (p95–127) is six near-identical mini-decks with repeated generic titles ('Exponential growth of digital consumers (who will stay)', 'Investment in Internet sector') — a topic-dump, not an insight-led close
62
opening
EY Work Reimagined 2022 Survey
“A competently sequenced survey-findings deck with strong analytical action titles but a weak recommendation and synthesis - use the middle (p.5-p.10) as a teaching example of title-writing, not the opening or close.”
↓ Recommendation slide p.11 is phrased as a question instead of a declarative ask, diluting the punch of the deck's 'so what'
62
opening
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
62
opening
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
62
opening
2022: a record year for MENA IPOs
“A competent EY-style market report with strong pull-quotes and a real underlying thesis (MENA decoupling), but structured as a geographic data tour rather than an argument — useful as a reference for headline-metric framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative construction.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.8–11) share the identical title 'MENA IPO performance for 2022 listed companies' — readers cannot distinguish them in a TOC or thumbnail view
62
opening
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA
62
opening
PEOPLE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
“A competent insights report with pockets of strong action-titled storytelling, but it leans on repeated topic labels and a 40-page data appendix that buries its own recommendation — useful as a teaching example for individual insight titles (p9, p15, p20, p26), not for overall structure.”
↓ Title fatigue: 'Perceptions and understanding of climate risks' is used as the title for six distinct slides (p6, p8, p12, p13, p14, p16), making the deck feel like a topic dump instead of an argument
62
opening
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
62
opening
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis
62
opening
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
62
opening
The evolving private equity playbook
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a recognizable SCQA spine and strong quantified middle, but the opening buries its hook behind front-matter and the close fragments the recommendation — use the p.7, p.13 and p.16 titles as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Case study on p.4 precedes the problem framing on p.6–7, so the reader sees a 'result' before understanding what problem it solves
62
opening
Consolidated Full Presentation
“A disciplined investor-day portfolio update with strong action-title and callout craft within each LOB, but no firm-wide story arc — use individual sections (especially the CCB Banking and CIB Markets builds) as teaching examples for slide-level Storymakers discipline, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No firm-wide narrative spine: the macro tension on p.7 and p.16 never resolves into a 'so therefore' for the whole firm — it dissolves into five parallel LOB stories
62
opening
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
62
opening
02 20230302 SDD Strategy Outlook and Ambition for 2025
“A solid internal strategy-outlook deck with clean divisional MECE and a strong quantified ambition, but it buries the thesis and ends in a generic takeaways slide — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.8 — first four slides are mission/context with no hard number or stake
60
opening
Everest Group RCM Operations
“A reprinted analyst-report vendor profile with one good action title (p.4) and six dead topic-label slides — useful as a negative example for Storymakers training on action titles and missing closes, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Cognizant profile (page N of 6)' slides (p.5–p.10) are a topic dump with zero insight-bearing titles — the reader cannot scan and know what each page claims
60
opening
Aluminum Cans Market Assessment - Australia
“Solid analytical fact-base with declarative titles, but it's a research dossier rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and MECE benchmarking, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution — the deck ends on p.34 with an economics observation and p.35 logo; reader is left to infer the 'so what'
60
opening
ey global consumer health survey 23 global findings and highlights v2
“A research-report-as-deck: solid quote-titled findings and a usable 2x2, but structured as a six-country data catalog with no closing recommendation — use the country-slide titling style as a teaching example, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ 14 slides titled 'Summary, continued' (pp.6-11, 13-15, 17-19) — a navigational failure that destroys reader orientation and signals the deck wasn't given proper action titles
58
opening
Global Restart Key Dynamics COVID-19
“A competent mid-crisis analytical update with strong insight-bearing chart titles but no story arc - use pp.10/16/24 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (pp.6 and 30 both titled 'Key dynamics of the restart') collapse the pillar structure and signal no MECE spine
58
opening
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
58
opening
UNC Chapel Hill Cost Diagnostic
“A competent Bain diagnostic with a clear options inventory but soft narrative framing and lazy pagination titles — use p.14 as a teaching example of an insight-bearing title, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: 5 slides of front-matter before the key findings on p.6
58
opening
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription
58
opening
Sustainability Risk Under Solvency II
“A well-structured analytical thought-leadership white paper with disciplined action titles but generic section dividers and a soft, non-committal close — use it as a title-quality exemplar, not as a model of MECE pillar structure or commercial closing.”
↓ Section dividers (p4, p9, p15, p27, p36) all repeat the same deck title — zero MECE pillar labels, so the reader has no map of the argument's structure.
58
opening
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
58
opening
Global Automotive Study 2023
“A well-titled, evidence-rich research-report deck whose per-slide craft is exemplary but whose overall arc is a parallel-themed survey rather than a Storymakers SCQA build — use the action titles and per-section 'How to act?' pattern as teaching examples, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — pages 1-5 are admin/methodology before the first insight on p.6