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
130 matching · page 6 / 6
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
40
opening
Global Report What Worries the World Jul 23 WEB
“A monthly IPSOS tracker with solid data hygiene and a roughly MECE spine, but written as a topic inventory rather than a story — useful as a negative example of title quality and closing weakness, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes slide in the opening — covers (p.1-2) are decorative, not setup
38
opening
eReadiness 2023 Survey
“A well-titled, well-segmented research dump from Strategy& that demonstrates excellent action-title craft in the analytical body but buries its recommendation under 76 pages of evidence - use the consumer chapters as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Answer is buried: 5 recommendations land on p.79-80 after 76 pages of analysis, and both slides share the identical action title - the 'so what' gets ~2.5% of the page budget
38
opening
Fresenius SE 2023 06 13 14 Goldman Sachs 44th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
“A standard corporate IR deck with disciplined callouts and one strong transformation thesis (ReSet→ReVitalize) that is buried on p.18 and never re-asserted at close — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label dividers and an appendix-heavy tail dilute an otherwise defensible narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.18 — first 5 slides are cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider/generic context with no stakes or answer-first framing
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
Japan Hospital Insights Survey Findings Summary materials
“A disciplined survey-findings report with strong declarative action titles and clean MECE pillar dividers, but it buries the thesis behind methodology and ends as a sales pitch — borrow its titling and section-divider discipline, not its overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns 6 pages on methodology before a single finding (pp 1–6); the thesis is never stated up front
30
opening
SAP Innovation Awards 2022 Entry Pitch Deck
“A template-driven awards submission with strong KPI evidence but no narrative spine — useful as a cautionary example of how rigid submission templates kill action titles and destroy the closing act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Fourteen consecutive slides titled 'Additional Information' (p.15–p.30) — the deck abandons titling discipline entirely in its second half
30
opening
femke de keulenaer
“A competent secondary-research evidence pack with strong stat callouts but no narrative arc or recommendation - useful as a teaching example of how good data dies inside topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act - the deck terminates at p.17 data and jumps straight to 'THANK YOU!' on p.18
28
opening
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself
25
opening
MARKET DATA FROM SECONDARY SOURCES
“A secondary-research data tour disguised as a deck — useful as a counter-example of methodology-first structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation anywhere — the deck is a methodology demonstration ('here is how we pull secondary data'), not an argument