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 24 / 31
48
title quality
IBV Smarter Workforce Institute
“A competent IBV thought-leadership deck with a real recommendation (FORT) at the end, but the repeated topic-label titles and bloated context section make it a teaching example for naming discipline, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ The same title 'Amplifying employee voice' is reused on p.1, 4, 6, 8, and 22 — wastes the most valuable real estate on the slide
48
title quality
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
48
title quality
Deloitte Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but conventional RFP-orals proposal — earns partial credit for an early thesis (p.4) and a quantified timeline title (p.6), but defaults to a methodology walk with topic-label phase titles, muddled Phase Three repetition, and a closing that fades into Q&A and 'About Deloitte'; useful as an example of RFP scaffolding, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing is essentially absent — p.16 'QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION' followed by p.17 'About Deloitte' with no recommendation, ask, or decision-required slide
48
title quality
The Best Service Providers for Commercial Banks, 2025
“A competent analyst-report excerpt with a clean skeleton and one strong hook, but it buries the ranking, closes on a vendor placard, and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example of section architecture and the p2 hook, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Thesis (seven Horizon 3 leaders named on p15) is buried 60% of the way through the deck
48
title quality
Generative AI Making Waves
“A well-structured analytical taxonomy with a memorable proprietary framework (WaveGram), but topic-label titles and a soft open/close make it a teaching example for framework design and MECE decomposition — not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly nouns/labels (p.20, p.26, p.28–34, p.43–49) — the deck reads as taxonomy, not argument
48
title quality
2nd Global Crypto M&A and Fundraising Report
“A well-structured PwC industry report with a strong BLUF and MECE pillars but topic-labeled chart titles and a marketing-pitch close — useful as a teaching example for opening discipline and section structure, not for action-title craft or narrative resolution.”
↓ Action titles abandoned in the analytical body — p.7-21 default to topic labels like 'Crypto Fundraising Deal Count by Sector'
48
title quality
2022 Deloitte US India Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Transparency Report
“A competent DEI transparency report with a recognizable pillar structure and good callout quotes, but it reads as a corporate disclosure rather than a Storymakers-grade argument — use the pillar-closing 'Summary of goals' slides as a teaching example, not the title-writing or opening.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis behind 5 front-matter/quote slides; no answer-first slide in the first 3 pages
48
title quality
Global Business Services Performance improvement
“A thought-leadership whitepaper in deck form — usable as a 'numbered-guide scaffolding' example but not a Storymakers exemplar because it skips the answer-first opening, uses imperative topic titles instead of insight titles, and breaks its own six-step MECE promise.”
↓ Action titles are imperatives ('Develop…', 'Focus on…', 'Extend…') rather than insight-bearing declaratives
48
title quality
Digital Revolution Awards
“A two-part thought-leadership compendium with strong callouts and a few sharp action titles in the first half, but absent thesis, broken pillar promise, and a missing recommendation make it unfit as a Storymakers exemplar — mine individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call to action — deck ends at p.36 on the Bain logo with no synthesis slide
48
title quality
Ipsos Global Happiness Index 2025 1
“A solid research-data report with two strong insight titles but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 7-9 as examples of good action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at heatmaps (p.19-20) and jumps straight to Methodology — no synthesis, recommendation, or implication slide
48
title quality
Education Monitor 2024 Ipsos
“A competent research-monitor publication with a strong answer-first opening and several model action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 4-14 and pp. 20/46 as teaching examples of insight titling, and use the pp. 47-58 sequence as a cautionary example of MECE failure and of a deck that analyses without ever recommending.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on methodology (p.73) and 'For more information' (p.74), with no recommendation or call to action
48
title quality
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible
48
title quality
COPERNICUS Market report February 2019
“A rigorous nine-sector market impact report with strong MECE bones and good quantified case studies, but it is structured as a research deliverable rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for parallel sector analysis and SWOT title-craft, not for opening hooks, action titles, or closing resolution.”
↓ No closing act — the deck stops at security case study p.155 with zero recommendation, next-step, or 'so what for EU funding' slide
48
title quality
ey global ipo trends q4 2019
“Competent regional market-update deck with a clear thesis up front and a strong rhetorical close, but undermined by lazy repeated topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide - use the quote-slide openers as a teaching example, not the analytical pages.”
↓ Workhorse analytical slides reuse identical topic-label titles ('Global IPO market insight' x3, 'Asia-Pacific IPO market insight' x3, 'Europe, Middle East, India and Africa IPO market insight' x3) - every one of those should carry the slide's specific insight
48
title quality
gpc genai ocsummaryv2 content
“A credible Gartner survey digest with a strong sample-size hook and decent per-function action titles, but structurally it is an analytical dump — no SCQA arc, blank section dividers, and a marketing CTA where the recommendation should be; use the per-function slides (p.26–36) as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Repeated identical titles on consecutive slides (p.4–6 'Barriers…', p.7–9 'Identifying… Benefits', p.10–12 'Pinpointing Use Cases') signal a topic dump rather than a build
48
title quality
3Q23 Investor Presentation GS
“A classic IR/positioning deck structured as a capabilities tour — strong quantified callouts and solid competitive benchmarks, but no SCQA arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles dominate; use p7–p10 as a teaching example of competitive benchmarking, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution — deck never poses the question it is answering, and never lands a recommendation or ask
48
title quality
The J M Smucker Co 2023 Barclays Presentation
“This is an investor conference deck, not consulting work — it has clean quantify-impact slides and a disciplined refrain, but as a Storymakers exemplar it demonstrates what to avoid (topic-label titles, missing Complication act, appendix-heavy tail) more than what to emulate.”
↓ No Complication/Question act — the deck never names a risk, market headwind, or strategic tension, so the 'recommend' slides (p.8, p.22, p.24) read as assertions rather than answers to a problem.
45
title quality
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
45
title quality
Reinventing Operations in Asset Management
“A research-report-style thought leadership deck with strong stats but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example of stat-led callouts, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No declarative answer-first opening — p.1-3 set context without naming what Accenture believes the reader should do
45
title quality
Deloitte Global Treasury Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with clean pillar structure and strong data, but not a Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach MECE sectioning and data callouts, not narrative arc or action titling.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.20 on a trend observation before 'Contact us'
45
title quality
Accelerated Access Review UK Mapping
“A structurally MECE but narratively incomplete analytical mapping — useful as an exemplar of parallel-pillar taxonomy and case-study titling, but a cautionary tale on closing: the deck stops before the recommendation and should not be taught as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on Methodology/Glossary/Limitations (pp.103-108) with zero recommendations, owners, or sequencing of the 12 opportunities teased on p.10
45
title quality
Nielsen Fan Insights
“A competent data-reporting deck with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, but not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.17 'Thank you!' with zero call to action
45
title quality
From resilience to reinvention
“A competent, correctly-shaped CEO-survey deck with the right SCQA bones but topic-label titles and a soft close — useful as a structural template, not as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title writing.”
↓ Titles are mostly nouns ('Outlook', 'Sustainability', 'Impact of AI') instead of insight-bearing action titles
45
title quality
Multi-regional transmission model
“A competent analytical build-up of a proprietary simulation tool that collapses in the final act — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and quantified callouts, but a cautionary tale on section architecture, topic-label titles, and the absence of a closing recommendation.”
↓ Broken section architecture: Roman numerals skip II and V, 'IV' appears twice (p.30 and p.33), and p.35 is a one-character divider ('U') — this alone signals the deck never got a final pass