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 9 / 31
70
opening
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
70
opening
2024 TransAct Middle East
“A competent annual M&A landscape report with sound MECE pillars and a strong cover thesis, but it functions as a reference scan rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.1, p.8, and p.12 as positive title examples and the rest of the body as a cautionary case for chart-caption titles.”
↓ Most sector pages (p.14-20) use bare colon-terminated topic labels ('Consumer markets:', 'Healthcare:') instead of insights, hiding the 'so what' from a skim reader
70
opening
The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it
“Competent McKinsey explainer that opens well and uses number-led titles, but it is an analytical breakdown not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of clean BLUF openings and quantified action titles, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'what this means for you' slide — deck jumps from STEM funding (p.7) straight to author bios (p.8).
70
opening
Nearshoring in Central America
“Solid analytical FDI/macro briefing with a strong data middle but weak narrative spine — use p.2 and p.15 as examples of good action titling, not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation under appendices.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends at p.18 with conditional upside and then 5 slides of appendix/sales/bios, so the 'so what' for a decision-maker is absent
70
opening
Royal Foundation Attitudes to Early Childhood Key Findings PUBLIC 150622 41
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and a clean S->C opening, but it is an analytical walk-through that never lands a recommendation — use the first 7 slides as a teaching example of findings framing, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends on a data table (p.16) and a Contact page (p.17)
70
opening
original
“A competent quarterly-earnings template that opens BLUF but ends in a tautology and an oversized appendix — useful as an example of disciplined callout writing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Closing slide 19 is a copy-paste of the opening slide 4 — no synthesis, no ask, no forward look
70
opening
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
70
opening
ey global ipo trends 2023 q4
“A competent quarterly market report with a sound geographic spine and several sharp action titles, but it reads as an analytical dump that buries a generic recommendation behind the appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast (insight titles vs «(Cont'd)» topic labels), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Eight slides titled with «(Cont'd)» variants (p.16–19, p.28–30, p.23) — these are topic labels, not action titles, and signal an analytical dump
70
opening
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“A short McKinsey POV primer with strong quantified action titles and a credible SCQA setup, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and impact sizing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution/recommendation slide — deck ends at slide 9 on an executive-sentiment data point with no 'so what'
70
opening
Calumet+Inc.+Carbonomics+Investor+Presentation+Final+11+Nov.+'24
“A competent investor deck with strong quantified callouts and clean two-pillar segmentation, but it buries the recommendation mid-deck and closes on reconciliations — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and segment structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slides 27–30 are EBITDA/segment reconciliations and p.31 is a bare 'CALUMET' logo — no recommendation, no next steps, no memorable close
70
opening
2021 q4 earnings results presentation
“A competently-staged maiden-earnings deck with strong title discipline on body slides, but structurally it is a performance report with a forecast appended, not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft on analytical pages, not as a model for act structure or closing punch.”
↓ No Complication/tension beat — Section 2 jumps from 'who we are' to 'we are delivering' with no 'what was at stake' slide
70
opening
529 cpe
“A polished JPMorgan client-education reference deck with a solid analytical middle but a weak narrative frame — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and comparison tables, not for opening, closing, or signposting a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on disclosures (p.43-44) and a branded product page (p.45), with no 'so what should you do Monday' synthesis
70
opening
JPM Corp Fin Advisory Corporate Compass Jan 2024
“A high-quality analytical primer with strong action titles and dense data, but it stops at insight and never crosses into recommendation — use the body slides (p.6-10) as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p.14 closes on observation ('primed for action') instead of prescribing CFO actions
70
opening
FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation
“A polished, MECE earnings deck with disciplined action titles in the financial walk but no Complication and a recycled close — useful as a teaching example for top-down financial titling and divisional MECE, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication act — nowhere in the first 10 slides is a tension, headwind, or stakeholder doubt named, so the 'progress' story has nothing to push against
70
opening
Barclays Q1 2025 Review of Shareholder Activism 15 04 2025
“A data-rich quarterly market update with disciplined action titles and clean metrics, but it is a briefing — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never converts its analysis into a recommendation; use slides 11-16 as teaching examples for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No tension/complication act — the deck reports 'activity up' but never poses the 'so what' question for a target company or board
70
opening
TSN Barclays Consumer Staples FINAL
“A well-structured investor outlook deck with a crisp Grow/Deliver/Sustain spine and mostly declarative titles, but it lacks tension and ends on 'Thank you' — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline and action-title craft, not of full SCQA narrative.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the story is all reassurance, which flattens the narrative into an analytical dump despite the clean pillar structure
70
opening
Q3 2024 Fixed Income Call presentation
“Competent IR update deck with a front-loaded thesis and clean main/appendix split, but it's a status report not a Storymakers arc — use the NII/rate-hedge block (p.8-10) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA tension — deck is an all-good status update with no complication to motivate the analysis
70
opening
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Presentation
“Competent investor-relations earnings deck with a quantified opening and disciplined callouts, but organised by reporting taxonomy rather than narrative — use p.2-5 as a teaching example of leading with numbers, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Segment section (p.15-19) titles are pure nouns — 'Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank' — forcing the reader to the callouts to extract the story
70
opening
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Fixed Income Call
“A competent IR disclosure deck with above-average action titles in the first 14 slides, but it lacks SCQA tension, has no real closing ask, and is dominated by a topic-labelled appendix — useful as a reference for declarative titling, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names what's hard (rates, CRE, TLTRO repayments), so analytical slides like p.25–27 read as disclosure, not narrative payoff
68
opening
2019 Global FS Consumer Study DACH
“Solid, disciplined analytical consulting report with a clean MECE five-finding spine and a rare, well-built closing playbook - use the recommendation slides (p25, p31, p41) as action-title exemplars, but not the persona or data sections, where titles regress to topic labels.”
↓ Persona slides (p9, p12, p15, p18) use bare noun titles instead of insights - 'Pioneers', 'Pragmatists' carry no argument by themselves.
68
opening
Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference
“A tight 14-slide BCG press deck with strong declarative titles and a legible analytical arc, but it buries methodology up front and ends on a thesis restatement instead of a call to action: useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and paired contrast slides, not for closing structure.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide: the deck ends on a thesis restatement (p.13) followed by a brand cover, leaving the reader with a diagnosis but no prescription
68
opening
Seeing the BIG Picture
“A structurally elegant thought-leadership report with a MECE cinematic spine and strong insight-bearing analytical titles — use the LIGHTS/CAMERA/ACTION build (pp.10–43) as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar design and declarative titling, but not as a model for opening, closing, or transition discipline.”
↓ Five filler transition slides (pp.7, 9, 25, 41, 45) plus a literal '55' placeholder (p.55) bleed momentum between every section
68
opening
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 7th Edition
“A well-structured BCG/Altagamma research-insights deck with above-average action titles and a clean three-pillar body, but it buries its recommendation in a single closing slide — use it as a teaching example for pillar architecture and quantified titles, not for answer-first storytelling.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the deck takes until p.31 to surface recommendations, and even then the title ('several priority investments') is a hedge rather than a claim
68
opening
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer