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 19 / 31
62
title quality
AI Healthcare Errors
“A well-evidenced analytical case-study tour with strong mid-deck action titles, but it lacks the SCQA opener and synthesis closer needed to work as a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 9, 15 and 16 for teaching declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the title promises 'preventing healthcare errors' but no slide in pp.1–8 sizes the error problem or names the Question
62
title quality
Global Economics Intelligence Apr 2023
“A competent McKinsey periodic intelligence monitor with a strong opening thesis but no closing argument — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides and MECE geographic structure, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it lacks Complication-Resolution arc and ends without a recommendation.”
↓ Country section dividers (p6, p12, p16, p19, p22, p25) are pure noun labels — wasted real estate where a pillar insight should live
62
title quality
Medical Affairs Outlook Report
“A competent industry-outlook report with a recognizable arc and a few strong action titles, but it leads with topic instead of thesis and ends in platitude — useful as a 'callouts done right' example, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening (p.1–3) never states the thesis — the executive summary callout is a vague consensus statement, not the answer
62
title quality
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“Solid McKinsey-grade primer/landscape deck with strong numbers and case examples, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong lesson - use individual slides (p.31, p.35, p.27) to teach quantified action titles and case framing, not the overall structure, which lacks Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No 'so what': there is no recommendation slide, no call to action, no decision the audience is being asked to make - the deck stops, it doesn't conclude
62
title quality
Lazards Lcoeplus
“A best-in-class industry reference report with strong MECE bones and several insight-bearing titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the answer-first test and dies in an appendix — use individual slides (p.5, p.32, p.39) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No answer-first opening — 4 slides of front matter before any claim, and no executive summary up front
62
title quality
Simple & Digital Customer Experience Model
“A conceptual framework walkthrough on NPS/CX with strong individual action titles in the analytical middle but no narrative arc, no opening thesis, and no closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (pp.5, 9, 13), not for deck structure.”
↓ Opening five slides contain zero thesis statement - two covers plus three framework intros
62
title quality
TEF Application Evaluation 2019
“Solid descriptive evaluation report with strong insight-bearing analysis titles, but it lacks SCQA tension and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative architecture.”
↓ No resolution or call-to-action — the deck ends mid-analysis on p.27 ('ALL 36 STATES AND THE FCT WERE REPRESENTED…') and rolls straight into the appendix
62
title quality
THE IPSOS POPULISM REPORT 2025
“A well-instrumented, data-rich pollster report with strong individual trend titles but no resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles on chart slides, not as a structural Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — deck ends on a spending data table (p.55) and a contact slide (p.58)
62
title quality
Spring 2022 National Client Meeting
“An event-agenda deck dressed as a strategy story — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.45, p.46, p.56) but a weak Storymakers exemplar overall because it has no resolution and stitches three independent narratives together.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on Netflix-content trends (p.59–62) and 'Thank you!' (p.65) with zero recommendation, ask, or next-step — the closing_ask tag is misleading.
62
title quality
Sovereign Debt Restructuring
“A competent policy-brief deck with one strong, repeated quantified insight, but it buries the thesis behind heavy front matter and topic-label timelines - useful as a teaching example for repeated-stat reinforcement and case-comparator structure, not for opening or MECE pillaring.”
↓ Front matter consumes 21% of the deck (pp.1-3 cover/disclaimer/TOC) before any insight lands
62
title quality
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
62
title quality
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
62
title quality
PwC Golden Age index Unlocking a potential $3.5 trillion prize from longer working lives
“A solid analyst-led research report with strong answer-first opening and quantified action titles in the core build, but the recommendation lands mid-deck and the close trails off into benchmark and correlation appendices — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and exec-summary framing, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendation buried at p.25 of 57 with no closing reprise — the deck ends in correlation analysis (p.50) before methodology
62
title quality
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
62
title quality
Morgan Stanley Investor Presentation
“A competent IR deck with a clean three-pillar strategy spine but a missing Complication and a drifting close — use p.13-15 as a teaching example of pillared recommendation, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No explicit Complication: the deck asserts strength but never frames the tension (rate environment, student-loan policy risk, federal competition) the strategy is meant to resolve
62
title quality
ey gl hfs horizons insurance services excerpt 06 2025
“A competent HFS-style analyst research report with disciplined methodology and a few strong data-titled slides, but structured as a topic-organized findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action titles on pp.21-22 and p.27, not for overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck terminates in vendor profile (p.27) and front-matter (pp.29-30)
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
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
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)