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 6 / 7
50
opening
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
50
opening
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
48
opening
US Mail Volumes to 2020
“A classic BCG analytical build-up with excellent numeric action titles in the middle but a procedural opening and topic-labelled recommendation — use p9–p19 and p26–p33 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Procedural opening — p2–p6 are objectives/approach/segmentation with zero stakes; the 15% headline is delayed to p9
48
opening
Global Fashion & Luxury Private Equity and Investors Survey 2021
“A credibility-heavy Deloitte research report with strong evidence density and a front-loaded takeaways block, but structurally an analytical dump: topic-label titles, no resolution, and a close that reverts to respondent demographics — useful as a teaching example of 'how to carry a metric in every callout', not of Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Closing sequence p.52–56 is respondent profile, not recommendation — the deck ends on 'who answered the survey' rather than 'what investors should do'
48
opening
Payment providers
“A competent HFS/Deloitte analyst report with genuinely strong action titles in its analytical middle, but structurally it's a topic-dump with a buried thesis and no recommendation — use slides 17/20/24/25 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ Thesis is buried — executive summary sits at p.16/34, so a reader skimming the first third never meets the argument
48
opening
goldman sachs may 2021
“A competent IR/earnings presentation with above-average action titles, but structurally a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative design.”
↓ No Situation→Complication setup: jumps from sustainability theme (p.3-10) straight into Q1 results (p.11) with no bridging tension
45
opening
2023 Post Parcel industry trends
“A well-evidenced industry point-of-view with a clean three-act skeleton and strong declarative middle, but it opens with credentials and closes with a teaser — use the diagnostic section (p.10-15) as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 4 of the first 5 slides are credentials/thought-leadership, and the core answer ('Total Enterprise Reinvention') does not appear until p.20
45
opening
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
45
opening
Global tech report 2022
“A competent thematic survey report with strong individual data slides but a weak Storymakers spine — useful as an example of section-divider rhythm and quote/case-study texture, not as a model for answer-first narrative architecture.”
↓ No answer-first opener: p.4 'The headline numbers' is a label and the thesis never appears in the first 5 slides
45
opening
US Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Report
“A competent annual DEI progress report with a clean three-pillar MECE spine and strong human case studies, but its topic-labeled titles, absent recommendation, and self-congratulatory close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar architecture as a teaching moment, not the titling or the ending.”
↓ Data slides (p.10–15) are labeled by topic ('New Hires', 'Representation by Groups') rather than by insight, so the reader never learns what the numbers prove
45
opening
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway
45
opening
NBI 2023 Press Release Supplemental Deck December 23
“A competent research-report deck with a strong mid-section of declarative KDA titles, but it buries its Japan headline behind four methodology slides and ends in appendix/boilerplate — use pp.21–22 as a title-craft exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Thesis buried: it takes 9 pages to reach the Japan headline; a press-release deck should lead with it on slide 1 or 2
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
Tenth Annual Leveraged Finance and Credit Conference
“A competent investor-relations deck with a workable resilience narrative but a buried answer, a broken appendix boundary, and a logo-only close — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence chaining (p.7-9) but weak as a Storymakers exemplar of arc, dividers, and closing.”
↓ Closing slide (p.26) is just the company logo — no CTA, no summary, no ask
45
opening
csg investor day 2016 sru
“A competent investor-day progress report with several strong metric-led titles, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar — it lacks SCQA setup and pillar structure, so use individual action titles (p4, p8, p11) as teaching examples rather than the deck's architecture.”
↓ No Situation/Complication setup — the deck never explicitly frames why the SRU story matters before diving into metrics
42
opening
Scottish Fiscal Commission Audit
“A compliance-grade statutory audit deliverable that diagnoses carefully but buries every insight behind numbered topic labels — useful as a cautionary example of action-title failure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Sixteen consecutive slides titled 'Wider scope requirements (continued)' (p.16–31) — a catastrophic failure of navigation and a textbook topic-dump.
42
opening
Trend 2030 Scarcity of Resources
“A high-quality trend compendium, not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp6-16 as a teaching case for metric-bearing action titles, but its methodology-led opening, hidden pillars, and thin recommendation tail make it a poor model for full deck architecture.”
↓ Methodology-first opening: pp1-4 sell the Compendium product before any insight; thesis arrives at p17
40
opening
Ipsos Global Health Service Monitor 2023 WEB
“A well-organized survey data report, not a Storymakers deck — use the section scaffolding and THE HEADLINES pattern as a navigational example, but it is an anti-example of action titling and has no closing argument.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' act: the deck ends in appendix + methodology + corporate slide (p.30–p.45) with zero synthesis
38
opening
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
38
opening
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
35
opening
Annual Report 2018
“A compliance-driven annual report dressed as a strategy story — useful as a counter-example of how regulator-mandated structure crushes Storymakers narrative, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA opening — first five pages contain zero stakes-setting; the strategic narrative does not begin until ~p.21 ('How we create value')
35
opening
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
30
opening
An Introduction to Our Group Oct 2025
“A polished corporate capabilities brochure, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a cautionary example of how pillar dividers and proud proof points cannot substitute for a thesis, complication, and recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA: the deck never names a business complication a reader should care about — it only asserts capability
30
opening
Beyond thenoise: Orchestrating AI-driven customer excellence
“A thorough KPMG research whitepaper with a usable 7-step middle act, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on titling, opening hook, and closing — use the 7-step implementation spine as a teaching example for sequential build, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Implementing AI' is reused on five separate slides (p.23, 25, 28, 32, 35) and 'Highlights from the 2024 CEE research' on three (p.5, 11, 12) — placeholder titling, not action titles