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
89 matching · page 3 / 4
64
title quality
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
62
title quality
Lebanon Economic Vision
“A textbook McKinsey government strategy report with a genuinely strong SCQA diagnosis chapter, but the 1,274-page length, procedural opening, and topic-label-heavy sector dives bury the storyline — use the first 22 slides as a teaching example of analytical build-up, and the rest as a cautionary tale on appendix-as-deck.”
↓ The 1,274-page total length is itself the biggest narrative failure — the story ends at p.149 and the remaining ~1,100 pages of appendix-as-deck dilute every editorial choice that came before
62
title quality
Medical Affairs Outlook Report
“A competent industry-outlook report with a recognizable arc and a few strong action titles, but it leads with topic instead of thesis and ends in platitude — useful as a 'callouts done right' example, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening (p.1–3) never states the thesis — the executive summary callout is a vague consensus statement, not the answer
62
title quality
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“Solid McKinsey-grade primer/landscape deck with strong numbers and case examples, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong lesson - use individual slides (p.31, p.35, p.27) to teach quantified action titles and case framing, not the overall structure, which lacks Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No 'so what': there is no recommendation slide, no call to action, no decision the audience is being asked to make - the deck stops, it doesn't conclude
60
title quality
Accenture Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A pitch deck with a strong emotional hook and a few well-voiced action titles, but it abandons narrative arc midway and ends with a question mark instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for opening hooks, not for full Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a '?' transition (p.14) and a title-card filler (p.15) instead of a recommendation or ask
60
title quality
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
58
title quality
The ultimate healthcare experience: what people want
“A competently structured four-pillar research brief with a clean MECE scaffold but a weak opening hook and a toothless closing — useful as a teaching example of section architecture, not of action titles or calls-to-action.”
↓ Recommendation slide (p.19) uses a descriptive paragraph as its title instead of a directive action title — the single most important slide doesn't prescribe
58
title quality
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing
58
title quality
modern retirement monthly report en
“A polished UBS client-education guidebook with strong MECE lifecycle pillars but weak SCQA narrative and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for framework-driven structure, not for Storymakers storytelling.”
↓ No SCQA arc — deck never frames a complication; it jumps from 'why' (p.4) to framework (p.5) to lifecycle education with no tension to resolve
58
title quality
NCM SNCM Y 2022 SNCMP
“A client-meeting status update built backwards — solution-first then evidence-dump, ending without a recommendation; use the action-titled streaming-data slides (p.44-46, p.56) as a teaching example, but treat the overall structure as a counter-example for SCQA.”
↓ Closes with a data table (p.62 'Quick Fade of Top Movies') and a thank-you slide — no recommendation, no next steps, no ask
58
title quality
Retail resilience report
“A competent analytical research report with strong figure-level callouts in the middle, but it reads as a survey write-up rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of data callouts, not of narrative architecture, opening hooks, or closing recommendations.”
↓ No thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides — cover is a rhetorical question, p.3 is a topic label
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
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 IPSOS REPUTATION COUNCIL
“A well-evidenced research-anthology report with strong stat-anchored slides but no overall narrative spine or closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title discipline on individual data slides (p.9, p.14), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or CTA — deck ends on a Quickfire data slide (p.26) and three appendix pages, breaking Storymakers' resolution requirement
55
title quality
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
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
ey e book the green transition
“A competently structured EY thought-leadership trilogy with clean MECE pillars and quantified analysis, but it reads as three parallel essays with a topic-labelled opening and a slide literally titled 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for sectional build-up and recommendation slides, not for answer-first narrative or memorable closes.”
↓ No answer-first opening: the executive summary at p2 ('Addressing the climate crisis and accelerating the green transition') is a topic restatement, not a thesis — readers must wait to p5 for the first real claim
55
title quality
goldman sachs dec 2023 final 12 5 23
“A competent investor-conference update with a strong closing thesis and solid peer-benchmark titles, but the front half buries the answer and the growth pillars aren't MECE-framed — use p.5-7 and p.12 as title-quality exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening three content slides (p.3 'Overview', p.4 'financial performance detail') bury the lede — no thesis until p.13
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
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
Solving fashion’s product returns
“A British Fashion Council research report dressed as a deck — strong evidence, well-quantified problem, and excellent recommendation/case-study pairing, but inconsistent action titles and a placeholder-titled call-to-action mean it is a useful exemplar for analytical build-up and case-study integration, not for Storymakers structural discipline.”
↓ ~14 slides use the deck title 'Solving Fashion's Product Returns' as the slide title (pp.8, 19, 21, 26, 35, 42, 55, 59, 60, 64, 81, 82, 85, 87), forfeiting the action-title slot entirely.
52
title quality
Leadership: Driving innovation and delivering impact The Deloitte Global Chief Procurement Officer Survey 2018
“A competent annual survey report with MECE pillars and good benchmarking, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends in reference content — useful as a section-architecture exemplar, not as a model for opening, closing, or action-title craft.”
↓ Recommendations compressed into a single slide ('Action starts here', p.35) and placed before the industry/regional appendix — the call to action is structurally buried
52
title quality
rmb morgan stanley conference quilter september 2019
“Competent investor-conference update with a clean three-pillar spine but missing the Complication and a real close — useful as an example of pillar structure and callout discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the problem the strategy is solving, so 'Business initiatives' (p10-14) feel like activities rather than answers
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