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
130 matching · page 2 / 6
74
title quality
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
74
title quality
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
74
title quality
European Banking Barometer 2015
“A competently written industry barometer with strong per-slide action titles and a tight three-message exec summary, but it buries no recommendation and ends on 'Contacts' — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles and connector-title chaining, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or implications slide — the deck ends on p44 data and then 'Contacts'/'Appendix', with zero call-to-action
74
title quality
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
74
title quality
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
“A rigorous DECC-commissioned diagnostic with answer-first framing and quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the gap' instead of 'here is what to do' — use pages 4, 12, 15, and 28 as Storymakers exemplars of metric-led titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on a conditional frame (p.61 'What you would need to believe...') and dissolves into appendix
74
title quality
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)
74
title quality
2019 Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear protagonist (Dynamics) and largely declarative titles, but the soft complication, over-reliance on quote slides, and uneven pillar signposting make it a useful exemplar for action-title craft — not for full Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Heavy reliance on quote_slides (p.3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20 — seven of 22 pages) substitutes voice-of-expert for analytical synthesis
74
title quality
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
74
title quality
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal
74
title quality
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
74
title quality
China M&A 2024 Review and Outlook
“A well-structured PwC market review with strong slide-level action titles but a weak synthesis and outlook — use slides 5, 9, 10, 17, 20 as exemplars of action-title craft, but not the deck as a whole-arc Storymakers model.”
↓ Synthesis pages 31–33 are titled 'Key messages (1)/(2)/(3)' — pure topic labels on the slides that should carry the strongest insight titles
74
title quality
20240618 Barclays UK Corporate Bank Deep Dive
“A well-structured three-pillar strategic update with strong MECE scaffolding and quantified titles, but one that buries its thesis in the opening and fades into Q&A at the close — useful as a teaching example for mid-deck pillar construction, not for narrative hook or landing.”
↓ Opening four slides (p.1-4) are context/KPI dashboards with no stated thesis — the 'So what' is delayed to p.10
72
title quality
BCG Investor Perspectives Series
“Solid BCG research pulse-check with strong declarative titles in the analytical middle (p.7–17) but a topic-label executive summary and an appendix-dump close — use the middle 10 slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the deck as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends with a 7-page table appendix (p.19–25) and a contact page (p.26), so the executive reader gets data without a 'what to do Monday morning'
72
title quality
Introduction to Bain and Report on Resilience
“A well-argued Bain keynote with a memorable hook and a complete S->C->A->R arc, but a slow credentials-first opening, an unfulfilled 'Five Myths' promise, and a limp 'Thank you' close keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - useful for teaching declarative titles (P7, P19) and proprietary-index positioning, not for teaching deck architecture.”
↓ First four slides are Bain credentials/speakers/divider - the real narrative doesn't start until P5 and the thesis doesn't crystallize until P7
72
title quality
2022 Global Alternative Fund Survey
“A competently-titled survey report that delivers data point-by-point but has no opening thesis and no closing recommendation — useful as a benchmark for action-title craft on individual pages, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — the deck ends at p.48 on an ESG data point and cuts to contacts, violating the R in SCQA/S→C→A→R
72
title quality
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
72
title quality
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
72
title quality
SDG Guide for Business Leaders
“A competent McKinsey playbook with a strong three-pillar spine and mostly declarative titles, but it opens with two TOCs and ends with templates instead of a recommendation - use the INSPIRE/ENGAGE/IMPACT structure as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Two tables of contents back-to-back (pp.2 and 4) signal weak editorial discipline before the deck even begins
72
title quality
Hydrogen applications and business models
“An exhaustive, well-titled reference FactBook with consultant-grade analytical rigor but a buried thesis and a missing resolution — use the business-case section (p.128-184) as a teaching example for evidence ladders, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or pyramid lead — the integrating answer ('heavy-duty transport is the most promising near-term H2 business model') sits on p.14-15 of a 192-page deck instead of p.3
72
title quality
Southeast Asia's Green Economy
“A disciplined, MECE-structured co-branded report with a clean S-C-A-R spine and unusually tight quantitative reconciliation — use its chapter skeleton and exec-summary sequencing as a teaching example, but not its opening (13 pages of forewords before the thesis) or its appendix-style country section.”
↓ Opening buried behind 13 pages of sponsor forewords (p.9-13) — the thesis on p.16 should be on p.1 or p.8
72
title quality
What The Future Intelligence
“A thought-leadership magazine with strong action titles and a crisp thesis, but it diagnoses endlessly and never prescribes — useful as a teaching example of declarative slide titles and data-driven build-up, not as a model for Storymakers arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck has no 'so what / now what' slide; last substantive page (p41 'Future optimism gaps') diagnoses rather than recommends
72
title quality
ey global ipo trends 2023 q1 v1
“A competent quarterly market-update deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but no Resolution act — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.10 SPAC data and goes straight to Definitions/Contacts, leaving the reader without a recommendation
72
title quality
Q4 FY 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent investor-relations earnings deck with strong action titles and a clean lead-with-the-answer opening, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for the title-craft of slides 7-17 — not the structure, which lacks pillars, complication, and is overwhelmed by a 29-slide appendix.”
↓ 63% of the deck (29/46) is appendix — narrative drowns in reference material
71
title quality
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'