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 9 / 16
62
opening
Barclays H1 2023 Review of Shareholder Activism 002 1
“A data-rich but structurally flat market review — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts and geographic MECE, but a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation gut the Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends at p.15 and transitions straight to contacts + appendix.
62
opening
The J M Smucker Co 2023 Barclays Presentation
“This is an investor conference deck, not consulting work — it has clean quantify-impact slides and a disciplined refrain, but as a Storymakers exemplar it demonstrates what to avoid (topic-label titles, missing Complication act, appendix-heavy tail) more than what to emulate.”
↓ No Complication/Question act — the deck never names a risk, market headwind, or strategic tension, so the 'recommend' slides (p.8, p.22, p.24) read as assertions rather than answers to a problem.
62
opening
Deutsche Bank Q3 2024 Presentation
“A competent IR earnings deck with strong executive-summary title discipline but a reporting (not story) spine — use slides 2-6 and the segment block (p16-p20) as teaching examples for action-title openers and MECE decomposition, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Analytical slides default to topic-label titles (p8 'Key performance indicators', p10 'NII/NIM', p31 'NII sensitivity') instead of stating what the data shows
62
opening
11 20230302 SDD How we measure and drive success
“A competent investor-relations ESG talk deck with a coherent spine and one strong insight title on p4, but soft complication and closing acts make it a solid example of structural flow — not a Storymakers exemplar for narrative tension or memorable close.”
↓ No complication/tension slide early on — p2 establishes context but the deck skips straight to the framework on p3 without stating what problem this solves
60
opening
A&M Valuation Insights – German vs. European Banks
“Tight, well-titled analytical brief with strong headline+driver titles but no thesis opener or recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full S→C→A→R narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.5 is labeled key_takeaways but reads as another data slide, and p.6 jumps straight to contacts
60
opening
2021 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey Report
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with strong quantified callouts but interrogative topic titles and a contact-us ending — useful as a teaching example of insight-rich captions trapped inside a question-driven structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are questions, not answers — p.8, p.9, p.10, p.11, p.12, p.14, p.15, p.17, p.18, p.20, p.21, p.22, p.23 all use the 'What/How...?' pattern, forcing the reader to hunt the callout
60
opening
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
60
opening
GenAI Survey 2024
“A competent survey-findings deck with above-average action titles but no narrative resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing on data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on a regulation stat (p.12) with zero «recommended actions» or «what to do Monday morning» slide
60
opening
2022 Manufacturing Survey
“A competent survey-results executive summary with a clear thesis on p.4 but topic-label titles and a data-dump close — useful as a teaching example of how analytical credibility alone doesn't make a Storymakers deck.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9-10) are a 2-of-2 data appendix, not a recommendation — no 'where to play / how to win' synthesis
60
opening
2024 TransAct Middle East
“Competent PwC market-update with a clear thesis on the cover and two genuinely insightful theme titles, but most analytical slides default to chart-label titles and the deck skips the Complication act — use pp.14-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Four chart slides (p.4, p.6, p.9, p.18) reuse near-identical 'Deal Volume FY-2021 to FY-2023' chart-label titles instead of stating what the chart proves.
60
opening
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
60
opening
Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Spring 2019
“A solid analytical market-update deck with above-average action titles and a real attempt at tension on p.9-10, but it has no recommendation act and ends in administrative pages — useful as an example of strong title craft, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends with team bios, contacts, methodology and a logo (p.11-15)
60
opening
Review of 2024 capital markets performance
“A competent McKinsey market-review chartbook with strong action titles and a clever median-vs-mean build, but it lacks a resolution act and a real exec summary — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at p.13 with a trend observation rather than a recommendation or 'implications for executives' close
60
opening
The individual health insurance market in 2023
“A solid analytical market briefing with disciplined, number-led action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 5–12 to teach insight-bearing titles, not the deck's overall arc, which lacks Complication, pillars, and Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so-what' — deck ends on p. 12 data and a wordmark (p. 13)
60
opening
Third-party governance and risk management The threats are real
“A data-rich Deloitte survey report with a clear diagnostic thesis ('execution gap') but no Resolution act and too many topic-label titles — use pp.22/26/28 as examples of good action titles, not the overall deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on technology analysis (p.35) then jumps straight to bios/contacts with zero recommendations or next-steps slide
60
opening
ipsos the perils of perception 2024
“A competent research-findings report with a clear thesis but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of how strong opening callouts and one well-titled correlation slide (p.35) get drowned by question-as-title data dumps and a missing recommendations act.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights - p.13/14/15 all share the same interrogative title with no takeaway
60
opening
does the us have a positive influence around the world ipsos survey 2025
“A short data-release deck that hooks with a question but never answers it — useful as a cautionary example of how strong cover questions get buried by topic-label data slides and a contact-card close.”
↓ No answer slide: the cover poses a question but no slide explicitly resolves it with a headline takeaway
60
opening
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
60
opening
ey norwegian crypto adoption survey v2
“A competent survey-findings readout with strong action titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative slide titles, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.13 then dumps into appendix/disclaimer (pp.14–16)
60
opening
ey og q2 2021 price point client deck
“A competent quarterly market briefing with strong callouts and quantified analysis, but it stops at 'here is what we see' and never reaches 'here is what to do' — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and editorial pull-quotes, not for storymaking structure or action titles.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends in 4 appendix slides plus contacts, with zero recommendation or 'what to do about it'
60
opening
Nielsen 2022 Audio Today How America Listens Jun22 FINAL
“A data-driven advocacy deck for radio that opens with a strong hook and insight-bearing titles but has no complication, no recommendation, and ends in an appendix — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never poses a tension for advertisers nor recommends an action
60
opening
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution
60
opening
Barclays+Investor+Presentation+vFINAL
“A competent investor-conference deck with a real thesis (valuation disconnect) and good callout discipline, but 55% appendix, no pillar structure, and a reconciliation-table ending make it a fair example of analytical framing - not a Storymakers exemplar of narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 11 of 20 slides (p.10-20) are appendix material - the deck is structurally back-heavy and the storyline ends at p.9
60
opening
20240220 Barclays UK Investor Update
“A competent investor-update deck with a clean pillar structure and a committed recommendation, but underpowered in complication-setting and answer-first opening - use pp.5-9 as a teaching example of MECE pillar-prefixed titles, not as a full narrative exemplar.”
↓ No explicit complication / 'why now' slide - the deck moves from context straight into framework, weakening narrative tension