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
20 matching
76
title quality
2023 Deutsche Bank FIG Presentation upload vf
“A competent investor-update deck with a clear thesis, disciplined action titles, and a proper three-beat close — use the opening and closing as Storymakers exemplars, but not the middle, where the Complication is soft and the four-pillar structure announced on p.5 is never used as the body's spine.”
↓ Complication is underdeveloped — p.6 'Strong start into 2023 despite volatile environment' gestures at tension but never frames a real obstacle the strategy must answer
74
title quality
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“A solid insight-driven survey summary with a strong paradox hook and numerate titles, but it stops at analysis and never prescribes action — use p.3/p.11 as examples of tension-framing, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck stops at diagnosis (p.13) with no recommendation, roadmap, or 'what companies should do' slide
74
title quality
Overview of the ASEAN-6 Automotive Market
“A disciplined market-atlas briefing with strong action titles and a front-loaded thesis, but it dissolves into a country tour and never closes the loop - useful as an exemplar of parallel country-profile structure and metric-led titles, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five case-study slides (p17, 21, 25, 29, 33) share a verbatim generic title - pure topic dump with no per-country insight
72
title quality
Crisis Preparedness 2019
“A thesis-driven survey deck with above-average action titles and a clean bookend, but the four sections are topical rather than MECE and the 'do these 5 things' recommendation is referenced rather than delivered — useful as a teaching example for hooks and headline writing, not for resolution structure.”
↓ p10 and p20 use 'PwC Global Crisis Survey 2019' as the slide title — brand chrome where the insight should be (74% sought outside help; preparedness as competitive advantage)
70
title quality
Embracing the Loyalty Equation
“A well-researched Accenture POV with a strong central framework but a soft opening, repeated titles, and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of framework-anchored analysis, not of Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Duplicate generic action titles: 'The way forward' appears on both p.17 and p.21, signaling the recommendation section was not sharpened
68
title quality
Ready for take-off Why niche markets are the next big thing
“A competent thought-leadership white-paper-as-deck with a real S-C-A-R skeleton and strong evidence, but undermined by repeated topic-label CTAs and a missing concrete close — useful as a teaching example for evidence callouts, not for action-titling discipline.”
↓ Three identical 'What can today's business leaders do?' titles (p.16, p.20, p.26) — wasted real estate, no insight in the title
68
title quality
20230215 Barclays FY22 Results Presentation
“A thesis-first bank earnings deck with strong action titles in the core build but no complication, no MECE spine, and a non-existent close — use the title-writing in p.6-11 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution slide — p.21 'Outlook' is a topic label, not a commitment or recommendation
65
title quality
Global Top 100 companies 2023
“A competent annual benchmarking publication with strong analytical action titles in the middle, but it is a data report — not a Storymakers narrative — because it has no complication, no recommendation, and dissolves into ranking tables; use slides 5-8 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never asks 'so what should leaders do?' and ends in ranking tables (p.17-21)
60
title quality
2015 Fintech New York Partnerships
“A short marketing/thought-leadership brief with solid data-driven titles on two slides but no narrative spine or recommendation — use p.3 and p.5 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis stated in the first 3 slides — the cover promises 'Partnerships, Platforms and Open Innovation' but those three pillars never organize the body
58
title quality
KEYS Environment Emergency
“A multi-presenter Ipsos webinar package with strong individual data points but no spine — useful as a source of stat callouts and the 'Shield/Sword/Standard' framework, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it ends in a case-study trail-off and contains a mid-deck thank-you slide.”
↓ Mid-deck 'THANK YOU' on p.29 followed by 30+ more slides reveals this is stitched-together speaker segments, not one narrative
58
title quality
Befesa Investor Presentation Goldman Sachs 4th Annual Carbonomics Conference
“A competent IR template with strong analytical fragments and quantified callouts, but structurally circular and front-loaded with topic labels — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and quantified action titles, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ Sections 01 and 03 are functionally duplicates — p.5 and p.47 carry the same €137m/-17% callout verbatim, and p.11/p.50/p.84 repeat the same 'Cash flow, net debt & leverage' page three times
58
title quality
Barclays US Consumer Bank 2024 Barclays Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report
“A competent research-bulletin deck with strong stat-led callouts but a weak narrative spine — useful as an example of numerical action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of SCQA structure or persuasive close.”
↓ Slide 5 has a non-title ('2024 Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report | 5') — a running footer mistaken for an action title, wasting a data-table slide
55
title quality
2022: a record year for MENA IPOs
“A competent EY-style market report with strong pull-quotes and a real underlying thesis (MENA decoupling), but structured as a geographic data tour rather than an argument — useful as a reference for headline-metric framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative construction.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.8–11) share the identical title 'MENA IPO performance for 2022 listed companies' — readers cannot distinguish them in a TOC or thumbnail view
48
title quality
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
38
title quality
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
38
title quality
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide
38
title quality
IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT 2025
“A research report dressed as a deck -- exemplary executive-summary craft in p.5-9, but the body is an atlas of survey tables and the close evaporates into methodology, so use the opening as a teaching example and the body as a counter-example.”
↓ Body slides p.11-49 are repetitive topic-titled data tables ('...by Country' / '...by Generation') with no action titles surfacing the insight
38
title quality
unlocking growth creating tech ecosystems
“A well-researched, MECE-disciplined regional ecosystems report whose analytical chapters are teachable but whose titles, opening thesis, and sponsor-led close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the parallel Edinburgh/Manchester build, not the narrative frame.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights: 'Executive summary' (p.4), 'Key recommendations' (p.5), 'Edinburgh: Tech investors' (p.18) — the reader cannot skim the action titles and get the argument.
30
title quality
2021 P&C Underwriting Survey
“A rigorous but inert survey-findings readout — useful as a teaching example of consistent callouts and segmentation discipline, but a Storymakers anti-example for its noun-titles, missing recommendation act, and taxonomy-over-argument structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on open-end verbatims (p.57-58) with zero call to action
30
title quality
business leaders outlook pulse 2023 ada
“A competently-written survey-results deck with strong callout writing but no narrative arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles—use it as a counter-example of how a thoughtful exec summary can be wasted by a structureless body and a missing close.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or call-to-action anywhere in the deck—it ends on 'External threats' (p.8) then methodology