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 20 / 31
58
title quality
2024 usb barclays presentation conference deck
“A competent investor-conference positioning deck with solid per-slide craft but no story arc — useful as a reference for action titles and quantitative callouts on specific slides (pp. 6, 8, 9, 13, 18), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication or thesis in the opening — pp. 3-7 establish scale but never frame a question the deck answers
58
title quality
Barclays Investor Presentation 2018
“Competent investor-relations deck with a solid pyramid opener and case-study spine, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.15-20 and select titles (p.40, p.34) for teaching declarative titling and evidence stacking, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a problem, risk, or gap the strategy is solving — weakening the SCQA arc
58
title quality
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
58
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2025 Presentation
“A textbook earnings-deck opening married to an appendix-heavy tail — use p.2–p.6 as a teaching example of thesis-first framing, but not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation behind a premature appendix divider.”
↓ Premature 'Appendix' divider at p.20 buries the actual close (p.21 '2025 financial targets' recommend, p.22 shareholder distribution commitment) inside what readers will skip
56
title quality
ey eurelectric flexibility study 2025 20250306
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership report with strong data anchors and a real chapter arc, but it front-loads its argument into a 7-page exec summary and recycles chapter names as slide titles — use Chapter 5 (p39–40) and the quote slides as Storymakers exemplars, but treat the title craft and CTA as cautionary cases.”
↓ Multiple slides reuse the chapter divider as their own action title (p12 and p15 both titled 'Why flexibility matters and how much is enough'; p33 and p34 both titled 'What it takes to unlock flexibility potential') — squandering the headline real estate
55
title quality
Blueprint for Service Success
“A competently structured consulting deck with a real S-C-A-R arc and a strong segmentation frame, but weakened by topic-label titles and a buried thesis — use its segmentation and roadmap slides as teaching examples, not its opening or titling.”
↓ Titles frequently fall back to figure labels ('Figure 1a', 'Figure 2c', 'Figure 5') instead of stating the insight the figure proves
55
title quality
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
55
title quality
The productivity push Powering the UK’s performance with five digital capabilities
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership piece with an exemplary MECE pillar section (p.14-30) but a marketing-style close — use the five-capability build as a teaching example of parallel pillar structure, not as a model for opening hooks or consultative recommendations.”
↓ Repetitive topic-label titles in the capability deep-dives ('Industry view', 'Capability in action' repeated 5x each) instead of slide-specific insights
55
title quality
2019 True-Luxury Global Consumer I nsight
“A data-rich BCG research readout with competent chart-level action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline on analytical slides, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what brands should do' slide — the deck ends at p.49 'THANK YOU' straight after a Made-in Italy chart
55
title quality
Syracuse University Diagnostic Report
“A credible Bain fact-base diagnostic with strong methodology framing but a sprawling middle and near-absent recommendation — use the setup (p.7-8) and two early insight titles (p.12-13) as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Buried thesis — no answer-first slide; the core tension (expense growth outpacing revenue) appears at p.12, not p.3
55
title quality
The Logistics Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent but inert market handbook with pockets of strong declarative titling in the regional KPI sections; use p.10/p.13/p.16 as action-title teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which lacks both a thesis and a close.”
↓ No thesis slide and no recommendation slide — 27 pages without a 'so what' makes this a reference document rather than a persuasive deck
55
title quality
IBV Research Report
“A solid three-pillar research report with the right analytical skeleton and a real recommendations close, but it buries its headline stat, under-uses section dividers, and leans on topic-label titles — teach the pillar structure, not the opening or the titling.”
↓ Headline stat (36% revenue/efficiency lift from analytics-led innovation) is buried on p.5 instead of driving the cover or exec summary
55
title quality
2021 CEO Outlook
“A solid survey-summary deck that leads with the answer and closes with explicit actions, but mixed title quality and unlabeled pillars make it a useful teaching example of 'thesis upfront' rather than a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 'Trusted purpose' is reused as the title for both p.12 and p.13 — readers cannot tell the slides apart from the ToC
55
title quality
Breakthrough Brigade Innovation Growth
“A solid thought-leadership report with a real MECE recommendations spine, but its brand-heavy opening, descriptive figure titles, and toothless 'Summary' close make it a useful teaching example for analytical pillar structure rather than for Storymakers-grade hook-and-payoff narrative.”
↓ Five front-matter slides (pp.1-5) including duplicate 'Our thought leadership' dividers delay the thesis to p.7
55
title quality
Navigating payments matrix
“A well-researched thematic walkthrough of payments trends with a genuinely useful 4 Rs framework, but it reads more like a magazine feature than a tight Storymakers argument — use the framework slides (p.21-23) as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.24-28) drift into regional trends and quotes with no call-to-action — the deck fizzles
55
title quality
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
55
title quality
KPMG global AI in finance report
“A competent thought-leadership research report with a clean four-pillar spine and good metric discipline, but it reads as an analytical survey rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as an example of section architecture and metric-anchored slides, not of action-title craft or SCQA opening.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never frames a complication or burning question before diving into framework (p.5) and benefits (p.8)
55
title quality
Capturing opportunities today, reinventing for tomorrow
“A competently structured three-act CEO-survey deck with a real recommendation page but weak title craft and a buried hook - useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline, not of action-title writing.”
↓ The killer stat (60% survival concern, p.3 foreword callout) is buried instead of opening the deck
55
title quality
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
55
title quality
Nearshoring in Central America
“Solid analytical FDI/macro briefing with a strong data middle but weak narrative spine — use p.2 and p.15 as examples of good action titling, not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation under appendices.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends at p.18 with conditional upside and then 5 slides of appendix/sales/bios, so the 'so what' for a decision-maker is absent
55
title quality
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument
55
title quality
NBI 2023 Press Release Supplemental Deck December 23
“A competent research-report deck with a strong mid-section of declarative KDA titles, but it buries its Japan headline behind four methodology slides and ends in appendix/boilerplate — use pp.21–22 as a title-craft exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Thesis buried: it takes 9 pages to reach the Japan headline; a press-release deck should lead with it on slide 1 or 2
55
title quality
does the us have a positive influence around the world ipsos survey 2025
“A short data-release deck that hooks with a question but never answers it — useful as a cautionary example of how strong cover questions get buried by topic-label data slides and a contact-card close.”
↓ No answer slide: the cover poses a question but no slide explicitly resolves it with a headline takeaway
55
title quality
inv research 20210422 investing and covid 19 0
“A competent Ipsos research report with a front-loaded exec summary but a topical, SCQA-free structure and no recommendation - mine p.6-9 and p.31-32 as teaching examples of insight titles, but do NOT use the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in the deck; closes on a neutral stat (p.55) then appendix and contact info (p.60)