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 61.6
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
30 matching · page 1 / 2
84
title quality
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“An IAB/PwC industry benchmark report with exemplary action-title craft and a clean opening hook, but a one-slide recommendation section turns it into an analytical dump — use pp.7-22 as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall narrative structure.”
↓ Resolution is a single slide (p.26) after 14 analytical slides — recommendations are not unpacked, prioritized, or owned
84
title quality
January Macro Brief
“A strong analytical brief with exemplary declarative action titles and well-placed recommendations, but it stops short of being a Storymakers exemplar because it never closes the loop — use p.5/p.13/p.24 as title-writing teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on trend #10 (p.40) then a team bio (p.41) with no 'what to do first' or consolidated action slide
82
title quality
Surveyed nurses consider leaving direct patient care at elevated rates
“A well-titled analytical research brief with a strong opening hook but no real recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for SCQA story arc.”
↓ Closing is effectively absent — p.11's one-sentence recommendation is generic and disclaimer-styled, p.12 is bios
80
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
78
title quality
Fast-moving consumer goods: Driving value creation in an era of disruption
“A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Diagnosis act is only ~3 slides (p.5-7) before pivoting to recommendations on p.9, leaving the 'why these 5 imperatives' logic underbuilt
76
title quality
Year-end Macro Brief Into the Fog of Winter
“A polished macro chart pack with above-average action titles and a memorable 'winter' thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for slide-level title-writing, not for Storymakers full-arc structure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation act — deck ends on p.54's credit-crunch warning then jumps to team bio (p.55), leaving the 'so-what for executives' unanswered
76
title quality
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A competent descriptive market study with mostly declarative action titles and clean pillars, but it stops at analysis and ends in firm self-promo — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on firm self-promotion (p.46-47) and appendix (p.48-52) — there is no 'implications', 'recommendation', or 'next steps' slide
76
title quality
2024 icc men’s t20 world cup economic impact report
“A competent answer-first economic-impact report with strong action titles and a clean two-pillar structure, but it lacks a Complication and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-led openings, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck dribbles to an end at p.29 with a media-value stat, then a disclaimer
74
title quality
Pulse of Fintech H1 2021
“A well-organized analytical reference report with strong stat-led titles in its core, but it is a market-data digest rather than a Storymakers deck — use its action titles and stat-led section dividers as a teaching example, not its overall structure or its non-existent close.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.66 data table then About/Contacts; zero 'so what should investors/operators do' slide
74
title quality
Battery materials demand and supply perspective
“A competent McKinsey market-perspective deck with strong quantified action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens without a thesis and closes on 'unknowns remain' plus a generic 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.4–9), not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.11 is titled 'Conclusion' — a topic label, not an action title — and offers no recommendation or next step
74
title quality
2019 Holiday Survey of Consumers Keeping the good times rolling
“A competently titled but structurally flat research-findings deck — use its slide-level action titles and quantified callouts as teaching examples, but not its architecture, which buries the recommendation and ends on a methodology slide.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — the 'How to win the holidays' section (p.29-31) is only 3 slides and describes high-spender demographics rather than prescribing retailer actions
74
title quality
Introduction to Ipsos May 2024
“A competent corporate capabilities deck with good action titles and a quantified spine, but it's a company tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for title craft, not as an exemplar of SCQA structure or a strong close.”
↓ Duplicate titles on p.10 and p.11 («OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA» / «...THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA») — an editing miss that fractures the strategy section
72
title quality
What’s the future of generative AI? An early view in 15 charts
“A polished McKinsey explainer with strong action titles and a clear opening, but structured as a chart roundup rather than an SCQA argument — useful as a teaching example for title craft and lead-with-the-answer, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.16-17 macro sizing and a logo page (p.18), with no recommendation or 'what to do Monday' slide
72
title quality
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
72
title quality
20240220 Barclays FY2023 FI Call Slides
“A competent IR deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified analytical spine, but it lacks a complication act and trails into Q&A without a closing recommendation — use p.3-8 and p.13-14 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends at p.19 rating target, then Q&A/appendix/disclaimer, so the 'so what' never gets restated
70
title quality
The art of AI maturity Advancing from practice to performance North America
“A disciplined, well-architected thought-leadership deck whose five-recommendation 'How' section (p.20-28) is a clean Storymakers exemplar of imperative action titles, but the deck buries its answer for 15 pages and ends on theme rather than call-to-action — use the middle, not the opening or close, as a teaching reference.”
↓ No true call-to-action close — the deck ends on a thematic p.31 and an assessment figure (p.32) rather than an explicit 'next steps' recommendation slide
70
title quality
Global Banking Annual Review 2023 Nordics
“A solid analytical landscape brief with strong quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the picture' without a recommendation — use p.2 and p.7 as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or so-what slide — p.8 ends on a data table about headwinds, not a call to action
70
title quality
Risk in review Managing risk from the front line
“Solid PwC thought-leadership deck with a real S->C->A->R spine and a clear thesis, but undermined by repetitive mid-deck benchmarks and topic-label section headers - useful as a teaching example for thesis-driven evidence stacking, not for crisp MECE pillaring or memorable closes.”
↓ Several adjacent slides repeat the same Front-Liner-vs-others benchmark structure (p.12, p.13, p.16, p.18) without escalating insight
62
title quality
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
62
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2023 Presentation
“Competent earnings deck with a strong thesis-led opener but a noun-titled mid-section and a flat 'Outlook' close — use p.2-10 as a Storymakers exemplar of leading with the answer, not the overall structure.”
↓ Segment pages (p.21-25) revert to noun titles — 'Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank' — forcing the reader to extract the insight from the callout
58
title quality
Pulse of Fintech H1’21
“A solid MECE market-intelligence report with disciplined numeric section dividers and several genuinely declarative action titles, but no SCQA arc and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for region/segment structure and insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative or close.”
↓ Repeated topic-label titles inside the analytical sections ('Global insights' pp.7/8/9/14; 'Fintech segments — Payments' pp.17/18; 'Regional insights — Americas' pp.35/36) waste page real-estate that should carry the chart's takeaway
58
title quality
LCG SMA
“A polished but conventional asset-manager pitchbook — strong on credentials and a few sharp action titles, but it buries the real 2025 story and ends without a recommendation; useful as a teaching example of topic-organized brochure structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening — pages 1–5 establish firm scale ($4.1T) but never name the question the deck answers; the reader has to wait until p.18 to find the real story (2025 underperformance).
58
title quality
Barclays Investor Presentation 2018
“Competent investor-relations deck with a solid pyramid opener and case-study spine, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.15-20 and select titles (p.40, p.34) for teaching declarative titling and evidence stacking, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a problem, risk, or gap the strategy is solving — weakening the SCQA arc
52
title quality
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