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
635 matching · page 13 / 27
70
title quality
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
70
title quality
Responding to COVID-19: Addressing the economic impact of the crisis
“A solid analytical-diagnostic deck with a memorable 4R framework, but the recommendation half hedges and the closing evaporates — use the diagnosis section (p.6-10) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Closing collapses to a one-word 'Conclusion' (p.32) with no prioritized recommendation or next-step ask — fatal for a leader-facing deck
70
title quality
The Quantum Technology Monitor December 2020
“A competent state-of-the-market monitor with strong declarative analytical titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — use the middle slides as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis on slides 1-3 — the reader has to wait until p.4 to learn the deck's point of view
70
title quality
Global Health Partnerships Stop TB
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic-and-design deck with strong analytical action titles inside each chapter, but structurally a topic dump organized by team rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for KPI-tree slides (p.19-23) and pull-quote callouts, not for overall arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening flows straight from context (p.3) into approach/phasing (p.5) without telling the audience the answer
70
title quality
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
70
title quality
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
70
title quality
Responding to Covid-19 (2021)
“A competent COVID-19 reference almanac with strong action titles and clear callouts, but it lacks an SCQA frame and ends in a marketing CTA — useful as a teaching example for action-title and callout craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA setup in the opening: p.1-3 are cover/intro/TOC and p.6 is a generic 'summary facts' page rather than a thesis
70
title quality
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
70
title quality
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
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
70
title quality
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
70
title quality
Bike Sharing 5.0
“Solid analytical industry study with metric-rich declarative titles, but it is a Roland Berger 'overview' rather than a Storymakers argument - useful as an example of clean data titling, not as a model for opening hooks, MECE pillars, or recommendation closes.”
↓ p.2 'executive summary' restates the deck's purpose ('this study provides a comprehensive overview') instead of leading with the answer - a Storymakers cardinal sin
70
title quality
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
70
title quality
The Next Gen Index Millennials and Gen Z in the US
“A data-driven trend report with strong metric-anchored titles but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title hygiene, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — closes on a context slide (p.17) that restates a generic premise instead of resolving
70
title quality
2022 ANNUAL RESULTS
“Disciplined earnings/investor deck with a clean MECE three-pillar build and mostly strong action titles; useful as a teaching example for opening-with-the-answer and title discipline, but not a Storymakers SCQA exemplar - it has no real complication and ends in a thank-you, not a takeaway.”
↓ Several financial slides default to topic-label titles ('REVENUE BREAKDOWN BY REGION' p.4, 'CHANGE IN OPERATING MARGIN' p.10, 'DEBT BY MATURITY' p.13) instead of stating what the chart proves
70
title quality
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry-research report with answer-first openings and quantified action titles on the analytics, but the recommendations and close are weak — use slides 7, 8, and 12 as Storymakers exemplars of declarative titling, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.14, p.15) carry the section-divider label as their action title, hiding the actual insight
70
title quality
Perspectives on WMATA's ridership
“A competent analytical build-up that diagnoses the ridership problem well but ends on a question instead of an answer — useful as a teaching example of retrospective diagnosis and action titles, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation act: p.27 'What does this all mean for WMATA's ridership?' is the final content slide and it asks rather than answers
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
70
title quality
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a thesis-first open and a real recommendation close, but the middle is a trend-report dump without MECE pillars - useful as a teaching example for action-title quantification, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No MECE section dividers - slides 4-13 are an undifferentiated industry_trends run with no signposting of where the argument is going
70
title quality
2019 Fueling Energy Future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong problem framing and declarative titles, but the recommendation is smeared across too many framework slides and the close is a marketing link — use p.3 and p.15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is diluted across seven consecutive framework slides (p.10-17 all variations of 'wise pivot') with no single climactic 'here is the answer' moment
70
title quality
Turkey power generation evolution and top 100 players by capacity
“A competent league-table almanac with a strong analytical opener but no recommendation or close — use pp.3-6 as an example of declarative action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — p.16 is literally 'Thank you' with no next-steps slide
70
title quality
Elevating internal audit’s role: The digitally fitfunction 2019 State of the Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar build and disciplined 'Dynamics' protagonist framing, but soft stakes, a delayed thesis, and quote-slide padding keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and protagonist framing, not for narrative tension or BLUF openings.”
↓ Soft complication — no slide quantifies the cost of being non-Dynamic (the 81% who aren't), so stakes never sharpen
70
title quality
Goldman Sachs conference April 2021
“A competent investor-conference update that opens with the answer and lands a guidance upgrade, but soft pillar structure and an appendix-then-contact ending keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.2, p.5, p.11, p.12 as action-title teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Weak close: last substantive slide is a reconciliation (p.15) and the deck ends on «Contact» (p.18) with no recommendation or forward-looking ask
70
title quality
Barclays Q32023 FI Presentation
“A textbook fixed-income IR deck with strong declarative titles and clean pillar discipline, but no story arc or ask — use pp6-14 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No BLUF slide: pp3-4 ('Q323 themes' / 'Outlook') are topic labels where the thesis should live