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
737 matching · page 14 / 31
72
title quality
20190312 Deutsche Bank MIT Conference
“A competent investor deck with disciplined action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens with label slides and fades out into repeated 'Announced Acquisitions' tables — useful as a teaching example for quantified titles and three-pillar structure, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Three near-identical slide titles 'Announced Acquisitions' at p.33-35 — a cardinal Storymakers sin of topic-labeling over insight
72
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Fixed Income Call
“A competent IR disclosure deck with above-average action titles in the first 14 slides, but it lacks SCQA tension, has no real closing ask, and is dominated by a topic-labelled appendix — useful as a reference for declarative titling, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names what's hard (rates, CRE, TLTRO repayments), so analytical slides like p.25–27 read as disclosure, not narrative payoff
72
title quality
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2025
“A competent investor/creditor update with a clean answer-first 9-slide narrative and a heavy reference appendix; use p.2-9 as a teaching example of concise IR storytelling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — reader cannot see the pillar structure of the argument
72
title quality
2022 strategy update
“A financially rigorous investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but front-matter bloat, a single weak section divider, and a duplicated strategic narrative make it an exemplar of analytical discipline — not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Five-slide front matter (p.1-5) including a duplicated cover delays the thesis and wastes the reader's attention budget
72
title quality
200917 Credit Suisse Basic Materials Conference
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong action titles and quantified proof points, but it advertises a 4-pillar framework it never follows and ends in a financial appendix instead of a recommendation — use its titles and case studies as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends in financial dashboards (pp17-20) rather than a recommendation, next steps, or recap of the investment thesis
71
title quality
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
70
title quality
Thought you knew the Scope 3 issues in your supply chain? Think again.
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with a strong hook and a clean five-action closer, but its analytical middle leans on figure-label titles and its conclusion softens the punch - useful as a teaching example for SCQA pacing and imperative recommendation blocks, not for action-title discipline.”
↓ Figure/Table slides (p.9, p.10, p.12, p.13, p.17) use chart-label titles ('Figure 1: Distribution of upstream emissions by supplier tier') instead of action titles stating what the data proves
70
title quality
Port of LA Clean Truck Program
“A solid 2008 BCG business-case deck with a competent analytical spine and one exemplary action title at p.15, but the buried thesis and post-conclusion option dumps make it a teaching example for analytical rigor, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Structural misplacement: 'Agenda' divider at p.17 after the 'Conclusion' at p.16 inverts deck logic — option deep-dives (p.18-20) should precede, not follow, the recommendation
70
title quality
Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter
“Solid BCG explanatory brief with a coherent 'leapfrogging' throughline and strong US-China benchmarking, but structured as analytical build-up rather than a Storymakers story — thesis buried, dividers blank, recommendations absent — so use the market-sizing and leapfrogging sections as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the 'leapfrogging' answer doesn't arrive until p.25/26, and there is no upfront thesis slide summarizing the deck's point of view
70
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Singapore
“A short analytical excerpt with strong insight-bearing titles on the data slides but no Complication or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ p.2 'Country overview' is a pure topic label — the 90% digital-payments stat buried in the callout is the actual headline and should replace the title.
70
title quality
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
70
title quality
Digital Consumer Trends 2023
“A well-executed annual trends report with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc and no recommendation - use its title craft and callout discipline as a teaching example, not its structure.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on cost-of-living data (p.43) and a 'visit our hub' card (p.44), with zero recommendation or so-what
70
title quality
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
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
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
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
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
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
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
PwC’s 24th Annual Global CEO Survey
“A solid annual-survey communication piece with strong data-driven titles in the middle, but it is a thematic tour rather than a Storymakers-grade narrative — useful as a reference for action-title craft on data slides, not as an exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution or recommendation slide — the cover promises 'a leadership agenda to take on tomorrow' but the body never delivers an agenda; p.17 closes with reflection, not action
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
Innovation in logistics: advanced pooling and robotization
“An analytically credible but structurally loose point-of-view deck — use its quantified action titles (p.12, p.16, p.19) as a teaching example, but not its overall arc, which promises a 3-pillar framework and delivers a single-pillar essay.”
↓ Middle act drift — pp.7-11 jump from Russia (p.7) to platform success factors (p.8) to a 5-cluster business-model framework (p.9) to a repeat of the '3 areas' slide (p.10) to 'Big 3 facts' (p.11), with no MECE thread