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
374 matching · page 8 / 16
62
opening
Turkish NPL Purchasing Market Overview and the way forward
“A rigorous, scenario-driven Turkish NPL market study with strong forecast craftsmanship but weak Storymakers hygiene — use p.18-30 as a teaching example for forecast architecture, not for narrative or action-title discipline.”
↓ The promised 'way forward' is missing — no recommendation, no implication-for-AMCs slide, and the deck ends in policy recap + abbreviations + contact rather than a close
62
opening
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
62
opening
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“A rigorous government-commissioned diagnostic with strong quantified evidence in the middle, but it buries the recommendation under appendices and over-relies on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for Storymakers narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses into a single 'Next steps' slide (p.69) followed by 36 pages of appendix — no recommendation slide, no executive ask
62
opening
Deloitte Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but conventional RFP-orals proposal — earns partial credit for an early thesis (p.4) and a quantified timeline title (p.6), but defaults to a methodology walk with topic-label phase titles, muddled Phase Three repetition, and a closing that fades into Q&A and 'About Deloitte'; useful as an example of RFP scaffolding, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing is essentially absent — p.16 'QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION' followed by p.17 'About Deloitte' with no recommendation, ask, or decision-required slide
62
opening
Banking Consumer Study 2025
“A genuinely strong Storymakers exemplar for pillar architecture and imperative recommendation titles, weakened only by a soft, metaphor-led opening and figure pages that hide their insight in the caption.”
↓ Opening is soft: cover is metaphorical (p.1), TOC + methodology occupy p.2–3, and there is no answer-first slide stating the recommendation before the build-up begins.
62
opening
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3
62
opening
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competent PwC barometer report with a clean numbered structure and strong evidence, but it reads as an analytical briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of declarative M&A action titles (p.9–11), not as a model of opening hooks or closing calls to action.”
↓ Opening (p.1–4) wastes four pages on cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider before any thesis appears, and the Summary on p.5 is labelled 'Summary' instead of stating the answer
62
opening
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
62
opening
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely
62
opening
What’s next for digital consumers
“A solid McKinsey insight memo with declarative titles and a real complication beat, but it buries the opening thesis and has no closing recommendation — use the title craft and p.8 tension as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening is soft: p.2 is a generic 'Introduction' instead of a thesis slide, costing one of the most valuable real-estate pages.
62
opening
Deloitte 2023 CxO Sustainability Report
“A competent research-report-as-deck with strong per-page action titles on the analytical spine but weak framing pages and a generic recommendation close — use pp. 5, 8, 14, 16 as a teaching example of good action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven near-identical «What leaders are saying about …» quote slides (pp. 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19) are topic labels, not insights, and flatten the narrative pace
62
opening
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
62
opening
Ipsos Global Happiness Index 2025 1
“A solid research-data report with two strong insight titles but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 7-9 as examples of good action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at heatmaps (p.19-20) and jumps straight to Methodology — no synthesis, recommendation, or implication slide
62
opening
Ipsos Equalities Index 2023 Full report
“A well-instrumented opinion-research data book with a strong 20-page narrative front and a 50-page reference back, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.1–20 to teach answer-first openings and quotable callouts, and use the appendix as a cautionary example of topic-label titling.”
↓ Action titles are survey-question labels, not insights — the same question text is reused on 20+ appendix slides (pp.30–51)
62
opening
Introduction to Ipsos
“A competent corporate-intro deck with declarative titles and hard numbers, but structurally a topic tour without SCQA tension or a closing ask — use slides 5, 8, and 14 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Slides 10 and 11 carry near-duplicate titles ('OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA' / 'OUR STRATEGY BEING THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA') — wasted real estate and a signal of weak editing
62
opening
original
“A competent investor-relations deck with a stated thesis and solid supporting data, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc — no Complication, no Resolution, and topic-labeled data slides — so use it to teach how quantification should support a thesis, not as a model for narrative structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never articulates what challenge, risk, or decision the audience must resolve; it is a confidence monologue
62
opening
ey q2 2020 global ipo trends report v1
“A competent quarterly market-trends report with strong regional analysis but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.6, p.13, p.15) and MECE-by-geography coverage, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends at p.25 with a soft EY house-ad and tips into a six-page appendix without a 'so what / do this next' slide
62
opening
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
62
opening
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
62
opening
2022 firm overview
“A confident, numbers-forward investor overview with strong action titles but a buried thesis and no MECE spine — useful as a reference for declarative, metric-anchored titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the deck takes until p.4-6 to assert leadership and until p.16 to land the ROTCE target; nothing on p.1-3 previews the answer
62
opening
J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference 2025
“A competent investor-day deck with strong action-title discipline and clean financial build-up, but it lacks Complication and explicit pillars — use slides 6-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a threat, gap, or competitive pressure, so it reads as a victory lap rather than a story with stakes
62
opening
cb q1 2024 ie outlook report
“A competent JPM market-outlook brief with strong individual action titles but no narrative resolution — use slides 4, 6, 8 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on p.14 with an unresolved question and then a disclaimer
62
opening
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
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