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
726 matching · page 4 / 31
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
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
Earth Day 2024 Global Report
“A research-survey report with a strong executive summary bolted onto an analytical data dump — useful as a teaching example for action-title openers (p.4–11) and section pillar naming, but not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ ~75% of body slides title-recycle the survey question verbatim (p.13–37 especially), forcing the reader to derive insight from the chart rather than being handed it
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
75
opening
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
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
Re-focus your talent lens: Abundance awaits
“Solid thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar MECE spine and strong number-bearing action titles, but it ends on reflective questions instead of a concrete call to action - use it as an exemplar of SCQA setup and pillar structure, not of closing.”
↓ Ending is soft - p.33 'Unlocking future growth' poses questions and p.34 'Closing thoughts' offers 'three questions for immediate contemplation' instead of a concrete CTA or engagement offer
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
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A credible analytical findings deck with strong diagnostic action titles but essentially no Resolution act -- use p.3, p.11, and p.14 as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is one slide (p.15) with a question-as-title -- the entire Resolution act is missing
74
opening
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
74
opening
Southeast Asia’s Green Economy 2021 Report: Opportunities on the Road to Net Zero
“A solid, well-structured thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and a genuine recommendation act - use its MECE three-sector spine and branded close (p.74) as teaching examples, but flag the repetitive executive summary and topic-label framework titles as things to avoid.”
↓ Executive summary sprawls across pp.10-14 with three slides titled 'Executive summary' or 'Summary by the numbers' - repetition instead of escalation
74
opening
Socio-economic case for deepening solar PV deployment in Nigeria
“A textbook BCG pillar-analysis deck with exemplary action titles and MECE structure, but it buries the recommendation in a single slide and ends on 'Thank you' — use the middle (p.20-76) as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not the opening or the close.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.85) after 76 pages of analysis — 12 interventions named but no prioritization, owners, or sequencing
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
74
opening
Deutsche Bank Q4 2023 Fixed Income Call
“Investor earnings disclosure — not a consulting deck — with strong action-title discipline in the main section but no SCQA arc and a collapsed close; use p.2-15 titles as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc — there is no Complication slide framing rate risk, CRE exposure, or cost pressure as the tension the deck resolves
74
opening
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2024
“A disciplined creditor/IR information pack with strong answer-first framing and good action titles in the performance section, but it dumps into footnotes with no resolution and loses title discipline in the risk chapter — usable as a pillar-structure exemplar, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.25 Sustainability and falls straight into footnotes/disclaimers (p.26–29)
72
opening
AUTOMOTIVE –OES
“Competent Accenture research report with a legible SCQA spine and strong quantified titles, but the recommendation act is under-built relative to the diagnosis — use the opening (p.2-4) and transitions (p.19, p.22) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the resolution.”
↓ The 'four best practices' resolution (p.20-21) is compressed — practices 1-2 barely visible, 3-4 share one slide
72
opening
Commercial payments, reinvented Your blueprint for accelerating payments revenue growth
“A data-rich Accenture market-landscape report with a workable S-C-A-R arc and a strong numeric hook up front, but the blueprint promised in the title gets only four slides and no explicit call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for evidence density and opening thesis, not for balanced act structure or recommendation craft.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 4 slides (p.33-36) after ~20 slides of diagnosis — imbalanced for a blueprint deck
72
opening
Conquering the next value frontier in private equity
“A competent market-shaping POV with strong data slides and an early thesis, but the closing recommendations are fragmented and title discipline is uneven — useful as a teaching example for action-title-on-data-slide patterns, not as a whole-deck Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slides 4-8 re-establish context after slide 3 already delivered the headline, diluting momentum in the opening act
72
opening
FULL VALUE. FULL STOP How to scale innovation and achieve full value with Future Systems
“A well-structured analytical benchmark report with a clear Think→Act→Move spine and evidence-rich recommendation titles — use the numbered 'Act Like' section (p.17-22) as a Storymakers teaching example, but treat the opening and the soft p.26 close as cautionary tales of burying the stakes and under-specifying the call to action.”
↓ The thesis surfaces on p.3-4 but the single most provocative stat (46% revenue at risk) is held until p.25 instead of headlining the opening
72
opening
Industrial Speedsters How advanced technologies can turbocharge your speed to market
“Competent analytical-build deck with a respectable S→C→A→R skeleton and quantified action titles — useful as a mid-tier Storymakers example, but not exemplary because the thesis is buried and pillar scaffolding is absent.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.9 — the 'Speedster' payoff concept is never previewed in the opening five slides
72
opening
Make the leap, take the lead: Tech strategies for innovation and growth
“A well-architected analytical thought-leadership deck with a strong MECE pillar (Replatform/Reframe/Reach) and quantified narrative — use it as a teaching example for pillar design and action-titling, but not for opening hook or closing CTA.”
↓ The headline insight (5x growth gap) is buried until p.6 — the cover (p.1) and opening context (p.2) waste the highest-attention real estate.
72
opening
The productivity push Powering the UK’s performance with five digital capabilities
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership piece with an exemplary MECE pillar section (p.14-30) but a marketing-style close — use the five-capability build as a teaching example of parallel pillar structure, not as a model for opening hooks or consultative recommendations.”
↓ Repetitive topic-label titles in the capability deep-dives ('Industry view', 'Capability in action' repeated 5x each) instead of slide-specific insights
72
opening
The ultimate healthcare experience: what people want
“A competently structured four-pillar research brief with a clean MECE scaffold but a weak opening hook and a toothless closing — useful as a teaching example of section architecture, not of action titles or calls-to-action.”
↓ Recommendation slide (p.19) uses a descriptive paragraph as its title instead of a directive action title — the single most important slide doesn't prescribe