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 11 / 16
64
title quality
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competent PwC barometer report with a clean numbered structure and strong evidence, but it reads as an analytical briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of declarative M&A action titles (p.9–11), not as a model of opening hooks or closing calls to action.”
↓ Opening (p.1–4) wastes four pages on cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider before any thesis appears, and the Summary on p.5 is labelled 'Summary' instead of stating the answer
64
title quality
Digital Maturity Index Survey 2022
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with solid trend-level action titles and a clean archetype build, but it opens slowly, labels its archetype section as topics, and stops short of a synthesized recommendation — usable as a teaching example for quantified trend titles, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ Opening buries the headline: TOC at p.2, abstract exec summary at p.3, methodology deferred to p.8 — the 'EBIT uplift' thesis doesn't appear until p.4 and isn't quantified in a title anywhere
64
title quality
ey q2 2020 global ipo trends report v1
“A competent quarterly market-trends report with strong regional analysis but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.6, p.13, p.15) and MECE-by-geography coverage, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends at p.25 with a soft EY house-ad and tips into a six-page appendix without a 'so what / do this next' slide
64
title quality
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
64
title quality
2023 MS Conference Presentation
“A solid lead-with-the-answer investor deck for the first 11 slides that then dissolves into a 19-slide reference appendix — useful as a teaching example for thesis-first openings and peer-benchmark titling, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 60% of the deck (p.12-30) is appendix; the narrative effectively ends at p.11 with no recommendation or call-to-action slide
64
title quality
malcolm barr jp morgan
“A competent analyst-style inflation primer with a sharp opening question and an early answer, but with no MECE pillars and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of lead-with-the-answer on p.2, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide: deck ends on a tangential question (p.19) and rolls straight into 3 Disclosures pages (p.20–22)
64
title quality
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2024
“A disciplined creditor/IR information pack with strong answer-first framing and good action titles in the performance section, but it dumps into footnotes with no resolution and loses title discipline in the risk chapter — usable as a pillar-structure exemplar, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.25 Sustainability and falls straight into footnotes/disclaimers (p.26–29)
62
title quality
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2
“A dense, methodologically rigorous reference pack of ~13 defense-efficiency initiatives with strong per-initiative build-up but no global narrative spine — use the inner initiative templates (e.g., car-pool pp.193–228 or category-management pp.54–82) as teaching examples of structured analytical build, not the overall deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary or total-potential slide anywhere in the first 8 pages — the deck has no global answer-first opening, just TOCs (p.2–8) before jumping into Initiative 1 on p.9.
62
title quality
Investor Perspectives Q1 2023
“Competent BCG research-pulse deck with a strong analytical middle and quantified action titles, but no recommendation, no MECE pillars, and a seven-slide appendix dump for a close — use p6/p9/p15 as teaching examples of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p26 is just contact info, so the deck answers «what do investors think» but never «what should the reader do about it»
62
title quality
The CMO Survey Marketing in a Post Covid Era
“A competent annual research report with above-average chart titles but essentially no story arc — useful as a teaching example of strong metric-led action titles in the middle, and as a cautionary example of how topic-driven structure and missing opening/closing acts turn insight-rich data into a reference document rather than a persuasive deck.”
↓ No executive answer up front: p.2 is labeled 'executive_summary' but titled only 'The CMO Survey' — no pyramid-principle lead, no governing thesis
62
title quality
Global Economics Intelligence Apr 2023
“A competent McKinsey periodic intelligence monitor with a strong opening thesis but no closing argument — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides and MECE geographic structure, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it lacks Complication-Resolution arc and ends without a recommendation.”
↓ Country section dividers (p6, p12, p16, p19, p22, p25) are pure noun labels — wasted real estate where a pillar insight should live
62
title quality
Insurance Trends and Growth Opportunities for Poland (2015)
“Solid analytical setup and several insight-bearing titles, but the deck is a trend tour that never resolves into a recommendation - useful as a teaching example for S->C framing on p.3-4, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution: 'Topics for the debate' (p.24) abdicates the recommendation a consulting deck owes its audience
62
title quality
LIVING BUSINESS Achieving Sustainable Growth Through Hyper-Relevance
“A solid thought-leadership report with genuinely MECE pillars and strong analytical titles in the build-up, but fragment-style pillar slides and a missing recommendation act make it a useful teaching example for framework structure, not for full Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Pillar content slides (p14, p17, p21, p24, p27) all use colon-fragment titles like 'Companies should:' - reads as a placeholder for bullets, not a Storymakers action title
62
title quality
07 investorupdate2018 pc
“A competent investor-update deck with a thesis-up-front opening and quantified support, but flat pillar structure and several topic-label titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3-4 and the quantified callouts as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ Several pure topic-label titles — p.8 'Corporate & Institutional Clients', p.12 'Loan portfolio', p.19 'Financial targets', p.20 'Key messages' — squander the action-title slot
62
title quality
QDEL JPM 2024 Presentation vfinal 010824 9 am PT
“Competent JPM-conference investor deck with a clean three-pillar build and a bookended 'Focused Path' recap, but it skips the Complication, leans on topic-label titles in key slots, and trails off into 'Thank you' — useful as a title-craft example for the Savanna and synergy slides, not as an overall narrative arc exemplar.”
↓ No Complication act: the deck never names a problem, market threat, or competitive tension, so SCQA collapses to S→A→R.
62
title quality
Barclays Bank PLC H12023 Client Information
“A competent creditor/investor information fact-sheet with pockets of good action-title craft on capital and liquidity, but structurally it is a topic sequence without SCQA, pillars, or a stated thesis — useful as an example of quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — pages 1-3 are cover and entity-structure context with no stated question or 'so what'
60
title quality
Everest Group CPG Services
“A competent analyst-report briefing with two strong declarative titles but a procedural opening, no complication act, and a recommendation that fades into five pages of appendix — use pp.5, 7, and 8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening act is procedural: pp.1-4 consume a quarter of the deck on cover, 'Introduction', 'Scope', and framework mechanics before any thesis is asserted
60
title quality
14th Five-Year Plan Sector Impact
“A competent policy explainer organized as a sector-by-sector inventory — useful as an example of action titles and callout discipline, but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it has no pillars, no synthesis, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation, synthesis, or 'so-what' slide before the contact page (p.13 → p.14 contact)
60
title quality
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
60
title quality
presentation us tl strategy sma
“A textbook 4Ps JPMAM fund-marketing deck with a strong analytical middle (Case + Process) but a credentials-led opening and a data-dump close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled industry-trend pages and case studies, not for SCQA narrative structure.”
↓ Thesis is buried: pp. 1–7 are cover, TOC, divider, and firm credentials; the strategy itself doesn't appear until p.8 — no 'lead with the answer' slide.
58
title quality
The ultimate healthcare experience: what people want
“A competently structured four-pillar research brief with a clean MECE scaffold but a weak opening hook and a toothless closing — useful as a teaching example of section architecture, not of action titles or calls-to-action.”
↓ Recommendation slide (p.19) uses a descriptive paragraph as its title instead of a directive action title — the single most important slide doesn't prescribe
58
title quality
MTA Financial Impact COVID-19
“A methodologically rigorous McKinsey forecast deck with strong precedent framing and a MECE revenue/cost spine, but it buries the $8.5B answer until p.33 and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for scenario analysis structure, not for Storymakers opening or action-title craft.”
↓ Buries the answer: the $8.5B total impact does not appear until p.33 of 38; opening is two disclaimers + cover + TOC with no executive summary
58
title quality
IAB Podcast Ad Revenue
“A credible industry data study with a strong SCQA opening and two exemplary action titles, but it degrades into topic-labeled data tables and ends in administrative back matter - useful as a teaching example for the p.4-7 setup, not as a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No synthesis or implications slide between p.10 (last data) and p.11 (Contacts) - the 'so what' for advertisers, publishers, or platforms is never stated
58
title quality
Crossing the lines Fintech
“A competent analytical-comparison deck with strong data callouts but a label-heavy opening, a flabby triple 'Steps to take' middle, and a soft 'Conclusion' close — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Three identical 'Steps to take' titles (p.16, p.19, p.21) — no differentiation, no numbering, no recommendation specificity; reader cannot tell the pillars apart