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
146 matching · page 2 / 7
78
title quality
IAB State of Data 2023
“A solid analytical industry report with strong title discipline on the diagnostic middle, but the recommendation is buried mid-deck and the close trails off into sponsor matter — use pp. 11-25 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation arc is buried — the recap fires on p. 26 but the deck continues for 21 more slides of frameworks, appendix, and sponsor content
78
title quality
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A well-titled diagnostic brief with a clean opening but no recommendation or MECE spine — use the action-title craft on pp.2/5/8 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a diagnostic finding (p.8) plus a methodology page (p.9) with zero recommendations or next steps
78
title quality
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
78
title quality
ey uli fow global survey 2020 report
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with strong headline discipline but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide; deck dissolves into 'About ULI / About EY' on p.24-25 instead of resolving the argument
78
title quality
2023 Goldman Conference Presentation
“A solid investor-conference deck with disciplined action titles and peer-benchmark logic, but missing pillar dividers and a buried recommendation make it a good titles-and-callouts exemplar rather than a Storymakers narrative-arc exemplar.”
↓ No section dividers between the five thematic pillars — the deck reads as a flat sequence rather than a structured argument
78
title quality
20250311 jpm conference presentation
“A competent investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean closing arc, but front-matter-heavy and missing explicit MECE pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.9, p.13), not for overall structure.”
↓ 27% of the deck (p.1-4) is front matter before the thesis lands — disclaimer/glossary/agenda crowd out narrative real estate
76
title quality
2018 True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight
“A textbook analytical build with strong data-led action titles, but it skips the Resolution act - use p14-p28 as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not as a model for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No synthesis/recommendation slide - deck ends on 'ready?' (p51), 'Thank you' (p52), and a BD pitch (p53); the reader never gets the 'so what, do this'
76
title quality
The Canadian Venture Opportunity
“A well-structured three-act BCG thought-leadership report with strong action titles in the diagnosis — use the p.13-18 benchmarking sequence as a teaching example, but flag the thin recommendation act and slow open as what Storymakers would fix.”
↓ Front-matter drag: 4 slides (cover, author note, agenda, quote collage) before the thesis appears on p.6 — buries the lede
76
title quality
Impact of IRA IIJA CHIPS Clean Tech
“A tight, answer-first policy-impact deck with strong quantified action titles but a softened arc (complication after analysis) and a topic-label closing — use p.3-p.6 as a teaching example for headline writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Complication slides (p.7 'Pre-legislation challenges', p.8 'Remaining challenges') land after the impact sizing, weakening the SCQA tension that would normally precede the analysis
76
title quality
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
76
title quality
USPS Future Business Model
“A solid diagnostic-and-options McKinsey deck with a strong quantified middle act but a weak topic-dump close — use pp.3-19 and pp.22-29 as a Storymakers exemplar for SCQA build and quantified action titles, not the recommendation section.”
↓ Closing collapses into topic-label dumps (pp.33-37) — 'Pricing opportunities for USPS', 'Workforce opportunities for USPS' — none carry an insight
76
title quality
Sustainability Risk Under Solvency II
“A well-structured analytical thought-leadership white paper with disciplined action titles but generic section dividers and a soft, non-committal close — use it as a title-quality exemplar, not as a model of MECE pillar structure or commercial closing.”
↓ Section dividers (p4, p9, p15, p27, p36) all repeat the same deck title — zero MECE pillar labels, so the reader has no map of the argument's structure.
76
title quality
Trend 2030 Scarcity of Resources
“A high-quality trend compendium, not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp6-16 as a teaching case for metric-bearing action titles, but its methodology-led opening, hidden pillars, and thin recommendation tail make it a poor model for full deck architecture.”
↓ Methodology-first opening: pp1-4 sell the Compendium product before any insight; thesis arrives at p17
76
title quality
Deloitte Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2022
“A competently-titled, MECE-organized thought-leadership survey deck that teaches strong action-title and callout discipline but diffuses its opening across four slides and buries its recommendations under a generic triple-header — use the per-slide titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Four-slide executive summary (p.2-5) dilutes the opening — the thesis should land on one slide
76
title quality
2024 icc men’s t20 world cup economic impact report
“A competent answer-first economic-impact report with strong action titles and a clean two-pillar structure, but it lacks a Complication and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-led openings, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck dribbles to an end at p.29 with a media-value stat, then a disclaimer
76
title quality
Fearon DBConference 2019
“A competent investor/IR deck with strong action-title discipline and a real arc, but it buries the thesis 20 slides in and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example of action-title writing and slide-chaining, not of Storymakers opening/closing craft.”
↓ Thesis deferred ~20 pages — p.21 'Eaton is well positioned to take advantage of these growth trends' should be near the front, not two-thirds in
74
title quality
Make the leap, take the lead: Tech strategies for innovation and growth
“A well-architected analytical thought-leadership deck with a strong MECE pillar (Replatform/Reframe/Reach) and quantified narrative — use it as a teaching example for pillar design and action-titling, but not for opening hook or closing CTA.”
↓ The headline insight (5x growth gap) is buried until p.6 — the cover (p.1) and opening context (p.2) waste the highest-attention real estate.
74
title quality
2023 Post Parcel industry trends
“A well-evidenced industry point-of-view with a clean three-act skeleton and strong declarative middle, but it opens with credentials and closes with a teaser — use the diagnostic section (p.10-15) as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 4 of the first 5 slides are credentials/thought-leadership, and the core answer ('Total Enterprise Reinvention') does not appear until p.20
74
title quality
US Mail Volumes to 2020
“A classic BCG analytical build-up with excellent numeric action titles in the middle but a procedural opening and topic-labelled recommendation — use p9–p19 and p26–p33 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Procedural opening — p2–p6 are objectives/approach/segmentation with zero stakes; the 15% headline is delayed to p9
74
title quality
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
74
title quality
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
74
title quality
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
74
title quality
Covid 19: Briefing Materials
“A high-quality McKinsey briefing document with strong analytical craftsmanship and action-title discipline, but structurally a report not a story — useful as a teaching example for slide-level writing and quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Recommendation is buried at p.41-42 and limited to 'operating-model speed' — too narrow relative to the humanitarian, economic, and operational problems framed earlier
74
title quality
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription