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 23 / 31
55
title quality
Calumet+Inc.+Carbonomics+Investor+Presentation+Final+11+Nov.+'24
“A competent investor deck with strong quantified callouts and clean two-pillar segmentation, but it buries the recommendation mid-deck and closes on reconciliations — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and segment structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slides 27–30 are EBITDA/segment reconciliations and p.31 is a bare 'CALUMET' logo — no recommendation, no next steps, no memorable close
55
title quality
Barclays Credit Bureau Forum 2023
“A competent investor-forum container with strong per-slide action titles in the BU sections but no forum-level story arc, weak opening, and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of good quantitative action titles, not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Nine-slide run pp.14-22 all titled 'Cloud Technology Platform' — pure topic labels with no insight, no progression, no action title
55
title quality
Barclays H1 2023 Review of Shareholder Activism 002 1
“A data-rich but structurally flat market review — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts and geographic MECE, but a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation gut the Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends at p.15 and transitions straight to contacts + appendix.
55
title quality
1100 Aircastle
“A competent investor-relations factbook with a thesis bookend and a few strong industry-trend titles, but a MECE-less middle and topic-label financials make it a cautionary Storymakers example rather than an exemplar — use pp.20-22 as a teaching moment on directional titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the investor's worry (leverage? cyclicality? AAM disruption?) so the analytical build has nothing to resolve.
54
title quality
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS MONITOR
“A thought-leadership research report with a strong counter-intuitive opening that gradually devolves into a topic-by-topic analytical dump with no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for hooks and section dividers, not for a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Six slides titled 'Concluding thoughts' (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) — repetitive, generic, and forfeit the chance to land the per-section punchline in the title
54
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2023 Presentation
“A competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and strong callouts, but structurally an analytical status report rather than a Storymakers narrative — use its executive summary and segment callouts as exemplars of answer-first writing, not its overall arc or title discipline.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never frames a problem or tension, so the analysis has nothing to resolve; it reads as a status update, not a story
52
title quality
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
52
title quality
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
52
title quality
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A competent Deloitte Insights trends report with solid per-section rhythm and data discipline, but structurally a topic anthology that opens slowly, closes flat, and lets six 'just the number' placeholder titles slip through — use the intra-section frame→data→case→recommend pattern as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ Six slides carry titles that are just the trend number ('03' on pp.11, 29, 31, 33; '04' on pp.39, 42) — the single biggest Storymakers violation in the deck.
52
title quality
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A competent industry research report with a logical value-chain spine and pockets of real insight titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close, and too many topic-label titles — useful as a case study in how to rewrite breadcrumb titles into action titles, not as a model of narrative structure.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide — the reader must read 16+ pages before any synthesis, and none ever arrives
52
title quality
2022 CEO Outlook
“A data-rich research report dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored callouts, but its topic-label titles, missing Complication, and weak close make it a poor Storymakers exemplar overall.”
↓ No Complication act: p.4 lists 'four themes' but never escalates to a single tension the deck must resolve, so the middle reads as parallel topic chapters
52
title quality
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
52
title quality
Copernicus Market report
“A meticulously quantified, MECE-by-sector EU market study with strong evidence but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of consistent sectoral templates and metric discipline, not of Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, synthesis, or call-to-action - the deck stops at Security case studies and slides into appendix (pp. 156-164).
52
title quality
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
52
title quality
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
52
title quality
The Future of Food Challenges & opportunities
“Competent data-rich industry report with a clear three-theme framing but weak Storymakers craft — use its metric-anchored analytical slides (p.13, p.26, p.28) as teaching examples, not its overall arc or titling discipline.”
↓ No answer-first opening: thesis is diluted across p.4-8 and never crystallized into a single provocation or recommendation slide up front
52
title quality
our life with ai google ipsos report
“A well-structured thematic research report with disciplined one-stat-per-slide craft, but it reads as a findings document rather than a Storymakers-grade argument — use its section scaffolding as a teaching example, not its opening or close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — foreword (p.2) talks about the study, not the answer; reader reaches p.5 before encountering a finding
52
title quality
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself
52
title quality
Barclays FY2023 ESG Investor Presentation
“A competent ESG disclosure deck structured as a taxonomy rather than a story — useful as a teaching example of MECE pillar dividers and KPI dashboards, but a cautionary example for Storymakers narrative: no complication, no recommendation, and a closing that dissolves into appendix.”
↓ No complication or recommendation — the 'Answer' act of SCQA is entirely absent; no slide says 'so here is what we are committing to next'
50
title quality
Capgemini Group Presentation 2022
“A competent corporate brochure deck with an elegant three-pillar spine and a clever linked-title device, but not a Storymakers exemplar — it delivers identity, not argument, and should be used to teach pillar architecture and title chaining rather than narrative arc or calls to action.”
↓ No SCQA: there is no Complication or Question — the deck moves straight from 'who we are' (p.3) to 'what we do' without naming a client problem
50
title quality
IPSOS LOVE LIFE SATISFACTION 2025
“A competent research-findings deck with several strong action titles in the back half, but it is structured as a data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of good callouts, not of arc construction.”
↓ Slides 4-6 reuse the verbatim survey-question wording as titles, abdicating the action-title responsibility
50
title quality
Global Assignment Policies and Practices Survey
“A competent KPMG survey readout with dense data and occasional action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case of analytical-dump structure with a marketing-CTA close — useful to teach what to fix, not to imitate.”
↓ No SCQA arc — slides 6 onward are a sequential survey readout rather than a problem→analysis→answer narrative
50
title quality
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent PwC benchmark report with strong data hygiene but weak narrative engineering — useful as a reference artifact and as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation hollow out an otherwise data-rich deck.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends in ranking tables (pp.22-26) and a value-distribution appendix (pp.29-33), not a "so what"
50
title quality
original
“A competent quarterly-earnings template that opens BLUF but ends in a tautology and an oversized appendix — useful as an example of disciplined callout writing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Closing slide 19 is a copy-paste of the opening slide 4 — no synthesis, no ask, no forward look