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
726 matching · page 17 / 31
62
title quality
ey global ipo trends 2023 q4
“A competent quarterly market report with a sound geographic spine and several sharp action titles, but it reads as an analytical dump that buries a generic recommendation behind the appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast (insight titles vs «(Cont'd)» topic labels), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Eight slides titled with «(Cont'd)» variants (p.16–19, p.28–30, p.23) — these are topic labels, not action titles, and signal an analytical dump
62
title quality
luxury2019
“An EY luxury factbook with a memorable hook and exemplary financial-chart titling in its middle act, but no resolution and lazy navigation — use pp.12–29 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a story arc.”
↓ Closing dissolves into four near-duplicate 'How can luxury fashion embrace digital?' slides (pp.75–78) with no synthesis or recommendation — the deck ends without answering its own opening question
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
Q125 Results Presentation
“A disciplined bank earnings readout with strong group-level action titles but topic-label divisional openers and a thin narrative frame — useful as an exemplar of numeric headlines on group slides, not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Division-opener KPI dashboards (p.4, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24) are topic labels, not action titles — they waste the prime spot of each section
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'
62
title quality
HY24 BBPLC Client Information
“A competent credit-information factsheet with several well-crafted action titles, but it is a proof-point sequence, not a story — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles on individual slides, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening — the deck never states why BBPLC strength matters now or to whom (creditors? counterparties? regulators?)
62
title quality
Client Creditor Overview July 2023
“Competent sectioned investor/creditor update with strong action titles in the strategy block but no SCQA arc and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for callout-title alignment, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on 'Sustainability at Deutsche Bank' (p.29) → footnotes → disclaimer, with no recommendation, ask, or memorable close
62
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2023 Presentation
“Competent earnings deck with a strong thesis-led opener but a noun-titled mid-section and a flat 'Outlook' close — use p.2-10 as a Storymakers exemplar of leading with the answer, not the overall structure.”
↓ Segment pages (p.21-25) revert to noun titles — 'Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank' — forcing the reader to extract the insight from the callout
62
title quality
tifs investor presentation deutsche bank 17 june 21
“Competent IR deck with strong quantified middle-section titles but a weak hook and no closing ask — use the p.10–13 diversification/market-position slides as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on a margin-expansion chart (p.33) and then jumps to Appendix with no recap of the investment case
60
title quality
Value untangled Amplify speed to value through interoperability
“A solid Accenture research report with an intact SCQA spine and good quantified evidence, but it opens slowly, lets recommendation titles collapse to topic labels, and closes on a restatement rather than a call to action — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure and case-study placement, not for opening hooks or closes.”
↓ Opening burns five slides on context before the thesis lands at p9 — no answer-first hook
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
2020 CEO Outlook COVID-19
“A competently themed survey-findings deck with a stated three-pillar frame but no recommendation payoff — useful as a teaching example of action-title statistics, not of full SCQA story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.21 'In summary' is reflective, not directive
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
Global Assignment Policies Practices
“A competent survey-report deck with strong evidentiary density and some good action titles, but structurally a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title rewriting, not for arc design.”
↓ Opening wastes 5 slides on cover/TOC/intro/methodology before any insight — the BLUF (bottom line up front) is absent
60
title quality
Customers in spotlight FinTech banking
“A competent industry-trends brief with a strong opening hook and credible data, but the recommendation act is a single slide — useful as an example of leading with the answer, weaker as a model of MECE pillars or a built-out resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act is one slide deep (p.9) — the 'win-win partnership' thesis on p.8 deserves its own build of how/who/when, not a single conclusion paragraph
60
title quality
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
60
title quality
Lazard LCOE+
“A polished annual reference report with strong MECE pillar structure but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for parallel-section design and sensitivity tables, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opens cold: cover → TOC → divider → three 'Executive Summary—...' topic-label slides (pp.1-6) before any insight surfaces
60
title quality
Blurred lines: How FinTech is shaping Financial Services
“A competent, stake-led PwC industry report with a clean numbered spine and several memorable action titles, but the recommendation collapses into a single 'Conclusion' slide after a heavy analytical middle — useful as a teaching example for stake-setting and 'So what?' synthesis, not for landing the ask.”
↓ Resolution act is just two slides (p.29 recommendation + p.30 'Conclusion') after ~22 pages of analysis — the recommendation is buried, not headlined.
60
title quality
2022 retail industry outlook
“A compact, co-branded Deloitte+Workday POV with a workable problem→answer spine but topic-labelled bookends and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of mid-deck action titles (p.5, p.7), not of opening or closing craft.”
↓ p.3 'Executive summary' is a label, not a thesis — the deck never leads with its answer
60
title quality
The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020
“A competently structured thought-leadership survey report with strong data presentation but a soft thesis and aspirational close - useful as a teaching example of chart-per-finding rhythm, not of SCQA narrative or prescriptive closings.”
↓ Generic repeated titles 'The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020' on p.5, p.19, and p.29 waste the most valuable real estate on the slide
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
state of workplace study
“A competent research/thought-leadership report with stats-driven callouts and a topical three-pillar spine, but it buries the recommendation — use p8, p9, and p21 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No complication slide — tension is implied by stats but never dramatized, so p8-p29 reads as an analytical dump
60
title quality
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
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.