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 24 / 31
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
45
title quality
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A credible trend-survey report mis-cast as a deck — useful as a cautionary example of how strong evidence and good callouts can still fail Storymakers when titles are topic labels and the closing is a URL.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on a blockchain chart (p.16) and a URL (p.17)
45
title quality
Trends & AI in the Contact Center
“A competent survey-plus-capabilities deck with strong data callouts but a weak story spine — use its quantified pull-quotes as a teaching example, not its structure or titles.”
↓ Six near-identical section dividers (pp.2,4,6,8,10,12) eat ~20% of the deck without differentiating pillars — dividers should be MECE, not refrains
45
title quality
Time to talk: What has to change for women at work
“A well-researched, pillar-structured PwC thought-leadership report whose evidence and callouts are strong but whose titles are topic labels and whose recommendation is a slogan — useful as a teaching example of MECE pillars and quotable data callouts, not of action titling or closing discipline.”
↓ Action titles are mostly nouns repeated across multiple slides — 'Transparency and trust' on p.8-11 and 'Strategic support' on p.12/15 — so a reader skimming titles cannot reconstruct the argument
45
title quality
ey gender pay gap 03 03 2025
“A short compliance-style ESG report with decent data callouts but weak Storymakers craft — useful as a counter-example for action-title rewriting, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — p.3 'Our gender pay gaps' should read 'Pay gap widened 0.2pp to 14.8%, driven by part-time concentration'
45
title quality
EY Foundation 2022 2023 Impact Report
“A competent non-profit impact report with strong stakes and a bold closing target, but title quality and the long un-pillared case-study run keep it short of a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'how to use callouts to carry the argument' counter-example more than a structural template.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly nouns ('Income', 'Volunteers', 'Welcome', 'Smart Futures') instead of insight-bearing claims
45
title quality
morgan stanley conference slides
“Investor-conference status briefing with topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for action-title coaching, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide: a reader of the action titles alone cannot answer 'what is Northern Trust IT's argument?'
45
title quality
FIBA faninsights juli24
“A competent Nielsen data-tour report with strong callouts but weak narrative spine — useful as an example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, not as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles or SCQA closure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — the deck stops at p.16 demographics and jumps straight to 'Thank you!' (p.17), leaving FIBA with data but no advice
45
title quality
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
44
title quality
Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up
“A well-architected survey-report-as-deck with disciplined sectioning and a memorable Compliance Pioneer payoff, but action titles default to topic labels and the close substitutes metaphor for a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for repeating per-pillar 'Actions' beats, not for headline writing.”
↓ Action titles overwhelmingly topic labels (e.g. p.11 'Negative impacts of increased complexity', p.17 'A different way', p.34 'Culture of compliance') — the insights live in callouts, not headlines
44
title quality
Charging Ahead Australia’s battery powered future
“This is an Accenture capabilities/credentials deck dressed as a research report — structurally tidy but narratively flat, with a context-heavy open and a case-study close; useful as an example of section-divider hygiene and MECE frameworks, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is pure decarbonization context, never states the answer (pp.1-5)
44
title quality
20230530 A long way down Credit Suisse Rolf Sethe 11th EBI Academic Debate
“A chronologically compelling academic-debate narrative with a strong scandal-cascade spine and two genuinely original conclusions, but it buries its thesis behind seven 'Contents' dividers and repetitive price-delta titles — use the scandal-walk (pp.15-27) as a teaching example of dramatic sequencing, not the deck's structure.”
↓ Seven 'Contents' section dividers (pp.2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 28, 35) instead of named MECE pillars — the deck's structure is invisible to the reader
42
title quality
European Distressed Credit Watch List
“A competently produced reference catalogue of distressed European credits with strong market-context data on the front end, but it abandons narrative craft at the case-study section and has no close — useful as a teaching example of what 'analytical dump with no resolution' looks like, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends mid-catalogue at p.39 (Winoa) then jumps to contacts
42
title quality
Introduction to A&M Services in Asia
“A standard firm-capabilities brochure organized by practice area — useful as an anti-example of 'no SCQA, no close' and of topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck never poses a client Question, so there is no Answer to build toward; it is an undifferentiated service catalog
42
title quality
An Introduction to Our Group Oct 2025
“A polished corporate capabilities brochure, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a cautionary example of how pillar dividers and proud proof points cannot substitute for a thesis, complication, and recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA: the deck never names a business complication a reader should care about — it only asserts capability
42
title quality
Capgemini Group Presentation 2025
“Corporate introduction brochure with a decent three-pillar spine but no SCQA arc and a bloated appendix — useful as a teaching case of how MECE pillars can coexist with weak action-titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or problem framing anywhere in the first 10 pages — the deck asserts identity rather than arguing a point
42
title quality
Tested, Trusted, Transformed An exploration of the Corporate Affairs Function and its Leaders
“A competently structured research report with a memorable title device and a strong Five Maxims close, but titles carry topics not insights and the middle lacks narrative tension — use the bookend thesis and Five Maxims as teaching examples, not the interior title discipline.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly questions or topic labels rather than insights (p.9, p.11, p.13, p.14, p.25) — a reader skimming the title stream cannot reconstruct the argument
42
title quality
IBV The Cognitive Enterprise
“A competent IBM thought-leadership brief with the right ingredients (client cases, a stake stat, next steps) but undermined by repeated topic-label titles and an invisible pillar structure — useful as a teaching example of why action-titling and section dividers matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides reuse the identical title 'The Cognitive Enterprise: The finance opportunity' (p.4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18), erasing any sense of forward motion
42
title quality
Familiar challenges new approaches
“A competent survey report with a clean three-pillar spine but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for chapter dividers and quote-slide pacing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Many data slides ship the raw 'Exhibit N: <question text>' as the title (p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.24, p.30) — the chart caption is doing the work an action title should
42
title quality
Accelerating Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
“A pillar-organized ESG disclosure report with strong client-case storytelling but weak title discipline and no narrative resolution — useful as a teaching example for case-study slide construction (p.21–30) and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers exemplar of the full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels ('Our approach' p.34, 'Development' p.36, 'Our people' repeated as title on p.37 and p.42) — readers cannot skim titles and reconstruct the argument
42
title quality
Scalar calibration For Life insurance business
“A competent two-part technical memo with disciplined callouts but topic-label titles and an appendix-buried structure — useful as a teaching example for callout writing and case-study framing, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Action titles default to noun phrases ('DESIGN DECISIONS: …', 'COUNTRY-SPECIFIC DETAILED ANALYSIS – …') instead of insights, forcing the reader to extract the point from the callout.
42
title quality
Private Markets Decarbonisation Roadmap Summary
“A product-explainer summary that documents a framework rather than argues a case — use its Alignment-Scale mechanics (p.5, p.12–14) as a teaching example for crisp framework explanation, but not its overall structure, which buries the CTA at p.9 and pads the back half with six slides sharing one action title.”
↓ The same action title is repeated across six asset-class slides (p.18–23), collapsing what should be six differentiated insights into one generic label
42
title quality
IEI 2024 Global Charts
“A competently organised annual research index with a summary-first opening and a handful of strong action titles, but it is an analytical readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because most titles restate survey questions and the deck ends without a recommendation or call to action.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on a data chart (p.38) then methodology, with the closing slide (p.41) reduced to a contact card
42
title quality
Accenture Tech Vision 2025
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE pillars and strong evidence cadence, but it buries its insights in generic section labels and fades into an appendix instead of landing a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for pillar architecture, not for action titling or closing.”
↓ Duplicated titles ('The Big Picture', 'The Technology', 'What's Next', 'A Portrait of the Future') recur in every section, making the deck unscannable and forcing readers to rely on callouts