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 18 / 27
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
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
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
Accenture Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A pitch deck with a strong emotional hook and a few well-voiced action titles, but it abandons narrative arc midway and ends with a question mark instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for opening hooks, not for full Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a '?' transition (p.14) and a title-card filler (p.15) instead of a recommendation or ask
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
2015 Fintech New York Partnerships
“A short marketing/thought-leadership brief with solid data-driven titles on two slides but no narrative spine or recommendation — use p.3 and p.5 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis stated in the first 3 slides — the cover promises 'Partnerships, Platforms and Open Innovation' but those three pillars never organize the body
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
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor stability in an unstable world
“A solid thought-leadership research report with disciplined section structure but written as an essay, not a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of pillar organization and section-divider headlines, not of answer-first openings or actionable closes.”
↓ Five identical 'Concluding thoughts' titles (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) waste the highest-leverage slot in each section
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
mercury rising
“A polished thought-leadership trends report with strong callouts and evidence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a teaching case for analytical-survey decks that miss the answer-first opening and recommendation-led close — use the callout craft, not the structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the foreword/exec-summary pairing (pp.3–4) defers the thesis instead of leading with it
60
title quality
06 20230302 SDD Insights into Sustainable Finance Gov
“A competent two-pillar governance explainer with one sharp SCQA pivot (p.5→p.6) but a slow org-chart opening and a generic outlook/takeaways close — use the mid-deck pillar structure as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Opening spends three slides on org-chart context (p.2–3) before the tension appears on p.5 — buries the thesis
60
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2024 Presentation
“Textbook investor-earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified scorecard, but analytical and segment sections revert to topic labels and it tails off into a 29-page appendix — use slides 2 and 6-8 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Segment section (p.20-24) titled by entity ('Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank', 'Asset Management') instead of by insight — reader must parse callouts to learn which divisions are actually driving the thesis
60
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Presentation
“A textbook bank-earnings deck with a strong declarative opening but a tail-heavy, recommendation-free close — useful as a Storymakers example for action-title openings, not as a model for full narrative arc.”
↓ Segment slides p16-p20 use division names as titles instead of insight statements
58
title quality
From survive to thrive Achieving tech transformation for communication service providers’ future
“A competent diagnostic-and-recommendations consulting deck with a clean three-pillar spine (p18-21) but topic-label titles and a buried call-to-action — use the transition slide and numbered recommendations as a Storymakers teaching example, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation on p8 ('Modern IT systems: A source of competitive advantage') arrives before the problem is fully framed on p9-10, muddying the S→C→A→R order
58
title quality
Global Banking Consumer Study Reignite human connections to discover hidden value
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE discipline and a strong hook, but it opens with context and closes with recap — use Chapter 2's pivot-to-play nesting as a teaching example of MECE layering, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 7 pages of 'forces' before the reader is told what to do about them
58
title quality
The age of AI: Banking’s new reality
“A textbook-MECE consulting report with disciplined pillar structure and good evidence, but action titles default to topic labels and the close fades — use the section architecture as a teaching example, not the title-writing or the landing.”
↓ Action titles often duplicate section names ('Lead with value' x3, 'Close the gap on responsible AI' x2) — the deck tells you the topic but not the insight
58
title quality
Stepping Up the Pace Manufacturing
“A competent Cognizant thought-leadership report with a legible three-act pillar structure and strong benchmarking evidence, but it buries its recommendation and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for MECE section dividers and leader-vs-laggard storytelling, not for answer-first opening or decisive closing.”
↓ No answer-first opening — neither cover (p.1) nor intro (p.3) states the recommendation; reader must reach p.14-16 to see the 'copy the leaders' thesis
58
title quality
Georgia Medicaid 1115 1332 Waiver
“A competent proposal-format deck with strong credentialing moments but no narrative arc and no ask — useful as a Storymakers counter-example of how 'Phase X: topic' titling and a 'Questions & Discussion' close flatten an otherwise substantive engagement plan.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never states Georgia's specific complication or the answer before diving into methodology
58
title quality
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing
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
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