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
374 matching · page 10 / 16
68
title quality
Deloitte 2019 Industry 4.0 Readiness Survey
“A tidy four-pillar benchmark excerpt with solid action titles in the middle but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — useful as a teaching example of parallel-pillar analytical slides, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or «so what» slide — the deck ends on Methodology (p.8) with zero call to action
68
title quality
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
68
title quality
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
68
title quality
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
68
title quality
ey people leaders forum 2025 presentations day1
“A disciplined, MECE-structured keynote with strong metric-bearing analytical titles, but it opens slowly and ends in a dinner invitation rather than a recommendation — use the three-pillar architecture and p.20-p.22 titles as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — closing flow p.28→p.29→p.30 dissolves into 'Seated dinner and networking'
68
title quality
Goldman Sachs Presentation Final
“A competent investor-conference deck with a strong analytical mid-section but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — use slides 7-12 as a mini exemplar of action-title + callout discipline, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides; p.3 'U.S. Bancorp' is a topic label where a point-of-view slide should be
68
title quality
Newmark May 2023 FI Conference Presentation Vf Final
“A competent fixed-income IR deck with several exemplary action titles in its middle third, but structurally it is a data walk rather than a Storymakers story — use slides 11, 14, 16, and 19 as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are pure front matter; the investable thesis ('when markets normalize we exceed peak revenues') is hidden on p.13 rather than stated on p.3 or p.4
68
title quality
PR Barclays Presentation 9.06.22 FINAL Update
“A competent investor-pitch deck with rigorous quantitative evidence but a weak narrative scaffold — useful as an example of strong financial pillars and supporting callouts, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening, MECE structure, or closing.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages — the merger rationale is buried at p6 behind disclaimers and bios
68
title quality
barclays global credit bureau forum v30
“Competent investor-day roadshow with strong slide-level quantified titles inside each segment, but no overarching narrative spine or closing synthesis — use the mid-section analytical build-ups (Ascend p.26, Verify p.29–30, Serasa p.50–60) as teaching examples of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck leads with agenda/CFO Q&A instead of an answer-first insight
68
title quality
Barclays H12023 Results Presentation
“Competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and disciplined main-body action titles, but it has no real story arc, a dead 'Outlook' close, and a topic-labelled appendix — use pp3-24 as a teaching example of metric-anchored action titles, not as a Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Dead close: p25 'Outlook' is a bare topic label with no recommendation, no ask, no memorable line — the deck whimpers into the appendix
68
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
66
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q4 2023 Fixed Income Call
“Investor earnings disclosure — not a consulting deck — with strong action-title discipline in the main section but no SCQA arc and a collapsed close; use p.2-15 titles as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc — there is no Complication slide framing rate risk, CRE exposure, or cost pressure as the tension the deck resolves
66
title quality
csg investor day 2016 sru
“A competent investor-day progress report with several strong metric-led titles, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar — it lacks SCQA setup and pillar structure, so use individual action titles (p4, p8, p11) as teaching examples rather than the deck's architecture.”
↓ No Situation/Complication setup — the deck never explicitly frames why the SRU story matters before diving into metrics
65
title quality
Pulse of Change Index
“A well-titled survey-findings summary with a strong analytical core but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified hooks, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a data point (p.10) and methodology (p.11), with zero 'what to do about it' recommendation
65
title quality
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
65
title quality
13.02.23 Annual Results Presentation
“A disciplined annual results readout with answer-first opening and clean MECE pillars, but soft on tension and ends on a taper — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of structure and answer-first openings, not of dramatic arc or insight-bearing titles in data sections.”
↓ Topic-label titles in the financial section (p4 'Revenue Breakdown by Region', p6 'Revenue Breakdown by Audience', p10 'Change in Operating Margin', p13 'Debt by Maturity') waste the most insight-rich pages
65
title quality
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
64
title quality
Building Sustainable Organizations
“A competent thought-leadership report with an early thesis and clear three-pillar spine, but the case-study run and closing undersell the recommendation — use the opening (pp.2-5) and problem-framing (p.11) as Storymakers exemplars, not the back half.”
↓ Case-study titles on pp.21-24 are company names, not extracted lessons — no insight portability
64
title quality
How will COVID-19 change the consumer?
“A competent Accenture research bulletin with insight-bearing data titles but no Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example of action titles on chart slides, not of narrative structure or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act — p.14 'next steps' is a plug for Accenture's hub, not a recommendation tied to the data
64
title quality
New Mexico State Staffing Study
“A thorough, well-templated operational diagnostic with disciplined per-function mini-arcs and quantified savings, but it reads as a reference document rather than a persuasive story — use its diagnosis-to-recommendation template as a teaching example, not its overall structure or opening/closing.”
↓ No aggregate savings / total-opportunity slide at either the opening or the close — the reader must sum ~$15M+ across 11 functional sections themselves
64
title quality
Good as Gold: Resilience and Continued Attractiveness of the Global K-12 Sector
“A solid narrowing-funnel thought-leadership piece with mostly good action titles and a clean 3-pillar structure, but it buries the recommendation under a 9-slide identically-titled data dump — use the p.3-22 analytical build as a teaching example, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides (p.26-34) with the literally identical title 'Overall growth in the premium segment…(X of 9)' — the single biggest narrative failure, forcing the reader to do all the synthesis
64
title quality
Global Economics Intelligence June 2023
“A disciplined regional macro digest with strong MECE pillars and number-bearing titles, but it is a descriptive intelligence product rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and pillar structure, not for story arc or close.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck terminates on Brazil data (p27) and logo (p28), with zero call to action or implications
64
title quality
Moving Laggards Early Adopters
“Solid mid-tier McKinsey explainer with a strong analytical middle and a clear three-part recommendation, but it buries the thesis behind a generic problem-overview opener and fades into a 'Thank You' close — useful as a teaching example for analytical action titles, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ Duplicated/topic-label titles in the opening (pp.3-4 share 'Overview of Challenges with Technology Implementation in Manufacturing'); no thesis appears in the first 5 slides
64
title quality
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