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 16 / 27
65
title quality
230911 mexico ir presentation
“A competent IR briefing with decent action titles and MECE scaffolding but no narrative tension and no close — use pp. 4–6 and 8–9 as examples of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA or answer-first opener — the first substantive slide (p.4) asserts generic 'opportunities' rather than stating the investment thesis
65
title quality
Q3 2024 Fixed Income Call presentation
“Competent IR update deck with a front-loaded thesis and clean main/appendix split, but it's a status report not a Storymakers arc — use the NII/rate-hedge block (p.8-10) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA tension — deck is an all-good status update with no complication to motivate the analysis
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
Resiliency in the making
“Competent consulting thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and three-pillar structure, but weakened by redundant titling and a missing call-to-action — use the opening bookend (p.2-3) and case-study pairing pattern as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Resiliency in the making' is reused as a slide title on p.18 and p.26 — wastes two action-title slots on branding repetition
64
title quality
Strategy at the Pace of Technology
“Solid analytical Accenture build with a textbook two-pillar MECE structure and a real recommendation slide, but a flabby front matter and a closing-divider whimper keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use p.15-22 as the teaching example for pillar dividers, not the opening or close.”
↓ Two slides (p.4, p.6) carry the identical deck-title 'Strategy at the pace of technology' as their action title - wasted real estate
64
title quality
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
64
title quality
Rise of Agentic AI Report
“A well-structured research report with solid MECE pillar dividers and strong data titles, but weakened by 20+ quote/filler slides that reuse the report title as a headline and a 25-slide firm-marketing tail that buries the client imperative — use its section architecture (pp 16/22/46/60/68) as a teaching example, not its openings or its close.”
↓ Roughly 1-in-5 slides use 'Rise of agentic AI: How trust is the key to human-AI collaboration' as the headline (quote and transition pages), abdicating the action-title discipline and forcing the callout to carry the argument
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
The CMO Survey The Highlights and Insights Report February 2022
“A well-titled, well-segmented industry survey report — useful as a teaching example for declarative action titles and callout discipline, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis, no MECE argument, and no recommendation.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck ends at p.93 on a cover page with zero 'so what' for the CMO reader
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
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
64
title quality
AADA Quadfecta Services for the Generative Enterprise™, 2024
“A competent analyst-report template with strong quantitative mid-section but weak Storymakers structure - useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide titles (pp. 17-19), not for narrative arc or closings.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action - the deck ends on a vendor profile (p.28) and an 'About HFS' page (p.31), so the buyer is left without a 'what to do Monday morning'
64
title quality
Talent trends 2020 Upskilling: Building confidence in an uncertain world Findings from PwC’s 23rd Annual Global CEO Surv
“A PwC thought-leadership PDF with a recognizable narrative spine and a few genuinely strong action titles, but it dilutes its own argument with topic-label sub-sections and a soft, generic recommendation — useful as a teaching example for the p11/p14 titles and the 'More talk than action' tension move, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Numbered challenge slides p15-p18 collapse to topic labels ('What skills to teach', 'Paying for it') instead of carrying the insight in the title
64
title quality
Presentation Half Year Results 260723 ENG FINAL VERSION
“A competent corporate earnings deck with disciplined callouts and several strong action titles, but its three-act structure is a reporting template rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for callout and action-title patterns on data slides, not as an exemplar of pillared storytelling.”
↓ Section dividers are categorical buckets, not strategic pillars — Financials/Business/Outlook is the default earnings template, not a MECE argument
64
title quality
160316 BBVA MS Conference tcm927 569522
“A competently structured investor-conference deck with a real SCQA spine and disciplined geography slides, but it under-delivers on opening hook and closing recommendation — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers closing-act model.”
↓ p.29 'Conclusions' is a label, not a recommendation — no quantified ask, no memorable close
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
fd4b1c5071718761657e3d9fd9dec1092cda8949
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong data-led brand titles in the middle act, but it skips the Complication, breaks its own 5-pillar promise, and bookends with one-word titles — useful as a teaching example for action-titled brand slides (pp.13-18, p.23), not for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication: nowhere in pp.4-11 is a problem, threat, or competitive tension named, so the strategic priorities (p.6) feel asserted rather than earned.
63
title quality
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“A solid BCG operating-model diagnostic with disciplined quantification and peer benchmarks, but it reads as a dense board-report archive rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its diagnosis→recommendation pairing within function sections as a teaching pattern, not its overall opening or closing.”
↓ The recommendation is buried: 22 pages of preamble (team bios on p.13, $5M BCG self-investment on p.8, project phases on p.6) precede the first substantive finding at p.23
62
title quality
Innovate or Fade European businesses need to address the technology deficit to turn the tide
“A solidly structured three-pillar thought-leadership deck with a quantified hook and MECE prescriptions, but it buries its call to action in a one-line conclusion — use p.13/p.17/p.25 as a teaching example for numbered pillars, not as an example of how to close.”
↓ Closing is anemic: p.29 'Conclusion' with no numbered actions, deadlines, or owner — the deck dies before the appendix
62
title quality
The disability inclusion imperative
“A well-evidenced thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and clean pillar rhythm, but it labels rather than argues in its titles and fizzles into inspiration instead of a concrete call to action — use the business-case section (p.10-17) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the whole deck.”
↓ Three separate slides (p.3, p.4, p.36) reuse the generic title 'The disability inclusion imperative' — title repetition signals topic labeling, not action titling
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»