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 19 / 31
58
title quality
Pulse of Fintech H1’21
“A solid MECE market-intelligence report with disciplined numeric section dividers and several genuinely declarative action titles, but no SCQA arc and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for region/segment structure and insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative or close.”
↓ Repeated topic-label titles inside the analytical sections ('Global insights' pp.7/8/9/14; 'Fintech segments — Payments' pp.17/18; 'Regional insights — Americas' pp.35/36) waste page real-estate that should carry the chart's takeaway
58
title quality
KPMG global tech report 2024
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong stat-anchored mid-section titles and a real conclusion+CTA arc, but it organizes findings instead of telling a story — useful as an example of pillar discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: p.1-5 are cover, TOC, foreword, methodology, and a teaser before the first insight slide at p.7
58
title quality
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
58
title quality
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“Competent short-form macro outlook with a textbook arc and two model action titles, but it buries the lead and asks rather than answers in the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for p.6-style titles, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening 3 slides (cover, outline, dashboard) bury the lead — no thesis stated in the first 5 pages
58
title quality
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“A competently structured Deloitte research report with a genuine MECE spine and flashes of strong action-title writing, but it withholds the thesis, under-delivers the close, and leans on topic-label placeholders — use its 'four actions' scaffold as a pillar exemplar, not its opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis is withheld: the executive summary (p.3) describes scope rather than stating the answer, forcing readers to p.6 to meet the central question
58
title quality
Customer Service Excellence 2022
“A competent Deloitte research report with a strong executive summary and several declarative insight titles, but it dissolves into topic-labelled deep-dives and has no recommendation slide — use slides 5-6, 15 and 24 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide before the team bio — closing (p.27-28) is two 'Deep-dive' appendix-style pages followed by 'Who we are'
58
title quality
Third-party governance and risk management The threats are real
“A data-rich Deloitte survey report with a clear diagnostic thesis ('execution gap') but no Resolution act and too many topic-label titles — use pp.22/26/28 as examples of good action titles, not the overall deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on technology analysis (p.35) then jumps straight to bios/contacts with zero recommendations or next-steps slide
58
title quality
ipsos populism report 2025
“A well-framed research report with a strong opening thesis that then devolves into an un-narrated data atlas and ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how action-title discipline collapses once you enter the evidence chapters, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a spending data table (p.55) and methodology, with zero implications or recommendations
58
title quality
KEYS Environment Emergency
“A multi-presenter Ipsos webinar package with strong individual data points but no spine — useful as a source of stat callouts and the 'Shield/Sword/Standard' framework, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it ends in a case-study trail-off and contains a mid-deck thank-you slide.”
↓ Mid-deck 'THANK YOU' on p.29 followed by 30+ more slides reveals this is stitched-together speaker segments, not one narrative
58
title quality
Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025
“A competent Ipsos data-release brief with two genuinely insightful titles, but structurally a findings dump with no SCQA arc and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how strong individual insights get buried by a topic-led running order.”
↓ Slides 4–6 reuse the survey-question text verbatim as titles, abdicating the action-title discipline
58
title quality
G@ Earth Day 2021
“A well-opened research report with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it ends in a topic-labelled data dump with no recommendation — use p.2–3 and p.8–10 as teaching examples for hooks and insight titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication or call-to-action slide — deck ends with 'THANK YOU' (p.44) and 'ABOUT IPSOS' (p.45) after a disclaimer
58
title quality
Investor Presentation Deck
“A competent investor-relations positioning deck with a solid financial middle section but no complication, no recommendation, and titles that hide their numbers — useful as a 'callout-writing' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: eight context slides (p.3-10) stack positioning without ever naming a threat, gap, or decision the reader must make
58
title quality
Fresenius SE 2023 06 13 14 Goldman Sachs 44th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
“A standard corporate IR deck with disciplined callouts and one strong transformation thesis (ReSet→ReVitalize) that is buried on p.18 and never re-asserted at close — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label dividers and an appendix-heavy tail dilute an otherwise defensible narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.18 — first 5 slides are cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider/generic context with no stakes or answer-first framing
58
title quality
Presentation+Leonardo+GS+Investor+Meeting
“A competent IR reporting deck with a thesis-first opening and several strong metric-bearing action titles, but fragmented by six agenda resets and fizzled by a financial-appendix ending — useful as a teaching example for numeric action titles (p.8, p.26, p.30), not for narrative arc or closing craft.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.2, 11, 21, 33, 35, 42) act as inert section gates instead of insight-bearing pillar dividers
58
title quality
LCG SMA
“A polished but conventional asset-manager pitchbook — strong on credentials and a few sharp action titles, but it buries the real 2025 story and ends without a recommendation; useful as a teaching example of topic-organized brochure structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening — pages 1–5 establish firm scale ($4.1T) but never name the question the deck answers; the reader has to wait until p.18 to find the real story (2025 underperformance).
58
title quality
keep moving forward
“A well-disciplined sales-marketing deck with strong MECE pillar architecture and quantified hooks, but title craft and the closing CTA are too soft to serve as a Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar structure as a teaching example, not the titles or the close.”
↓ Several titles are topic labels rather than insights — p.5 'Start here', p.9 'Today / Tomorrow', p.12 'Assessing your environment today' bury the so-what
58
title quality
529 cpe
“A polished JPMorgan client-education reference deck with a solid analytical middle but a weak narrative frame — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and comparison tables, not for opening, closing, or signposting a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on disclosures (p.43-44) and a branded product page (p.45), with no 'so what should you do Monday' synthesis
58
title quality
250115 ucb company presentation jpm
“A competent investor-day narrative with clean two-pillar structure and a memorable 'Decade+' through-line, but it skips the complication act and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers action-title or SCQA model.”
↓ No upfront thesis or stakes — the first 3 slides (cover, disclaimer, vision) delay the actual investment story until p.5
58
title quality
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
58
title quality
barclays global credit 2024
“A competent investor-day-style segment walkthrough with solid MECE by business unit and strong quant callouts, but it buries its overall thesis at both ends and repeats a single generic title nine times — use the Insurance sub-section (p.57–62) as the storytelling exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides p.8–16 all titled 'Ascend Technology Platform' — the single biggest title-quality hit in the deck; the reader cannot skim the narrative
58
title quality
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
58
title quality
Retail resilience report
“A competent analytical research report with strong figure-level callouts in the middle, but it reads as a survey write-up rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of data callouts, not of narrative architecture, opening hooks, or closing recommendations.”
↓ No thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides — cover is a rhetorical question, p.3 is a topic label
58
title quality
Barclays+Investor+Presentation+vFINAL
“A competent investor-conference deck with a real thesis (valuation disconnect) and good callout discipline, but 55% appendix, no pillar structure, and a reconciliation-table ending make it a fair example of analytical framing - not a Storymakers exemplar of narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 11 of 20 slides (p.10-20) are appendix material - the deck is structurally back-heavy and the storyline ends at p.9
58
title quality
Barclays US Consumer Bank 2024 Barclays Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report
“A competent research-bulletin deck with strong stat-led callouts but a weak narrative spine — useful as an example of numerical action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of SCQA structure or persuasive close.”
↓ Slide 5 has a non-title ('2024 Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report | 5') — a running footer mistaken for an action title, wasting a data-table slide