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
130 matching · page 3 / 6
70
title quality
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
70
title quality
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with a strong hook and insight-bearing key-message slides, but it stops at analysis and never answers the 'so what' — useful as a teaching example for action titles and rhetorical setup, not for closing a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends p.27-30 in methodology, sources, and an About Ipsos boilerplate
70
title quality
Turkey power generation evolution and top 100 players by capacity
“A competent league-table almanac with a strong analytical opener but no recommendation or close — use pp.3-6 as an example of declarative action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — p.16 is literally 'Thank you' with no next-steps slide
70
title quality
20230608 172439 CWCU 9YRZMYZ26FO0PKXJ.1
“A competent quarterly REIT investor update with strong, metric-driven action titles, but it is a topic-organised reporting pack rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides like p20, p16 and p5 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No complication act — the deck never names a problem, risk or strategic question, so there is nothing for the analysis to resolve
70
title quality
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward
70
title quality
Q1 2025 Fixed Income Call
“Competent fixed-income investor update with a disciplined answer-first opening and strong main-body action titles, but it collapses at the close ('Summary and outlook') and leans on a bloated 25-slide appendix — use the p.2-p.14 arc as a teaching example for answer-first sequencing, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Weak close: p.15 'Summary and outlook' is a topic label with no stated outlook, no recommendation, and no memorable takeaway
68
title quality
Banking on AI Banking Top 10 Trends for 2024
“Well-researched trend-report masquerading as a deck — strong figure titles and metrics make it a useful teaching example for evidence-driven slides, but the enumerative 10-trend structure and buried thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF / pyramid principle — the deck never leads with an answer; the exec summary is on p.45 of 48, not p.2
68
title quality
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
68
title quality
Driving innovation at scale
“A McKinsey board-education deck with strong analytical mid-section and headline-grade data points, but it buries its recommendation in the appendix and opens with anecdote — use the fear-culture build (p.18–22) and the data-driven titles as exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is missing from the main body — p.24 closes on an open question, and the most persuasive numbers (2.4x profit on p.31, 97% outperformance on p.27, iQ CTA on p.32) are dumped into the appendix.
68
title quality
global advisor earth day perils of perception environment gb
“A competent survey-results deck with a strong belief-vs-reality device and a clean three-pillar spine, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title-as-finding pairings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck stops analyzing on p.26 and never tells the audience what to do, recommend, or believe differently
68
title quality
ey people leaders forum 2025 presentations day1
“A disciplined, MECE-structured keynote with strong metric-bearing analytical titles, but it opens slowly and ends in a dinner invitation rather than a recommendation — use the three-pillar architecture and p.20-p.22 titles as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — closing flow p.28→p.29→p.30 dissolves into 'Seated dinner and networking'
68
title quality
Wilton Park Policy Brief 17102024
“A competent policy-brief structure with a disciplined before/after analytical spine and one genuinely memorable number, but front-matter-heavy opening and a soft, appendix-trailing close make it a good teaching example of analytical rigor rather than of Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: 4 of the first 5 slides are front-matter or generically-titled summary; no page in the first third states the recommendation
68
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
65
title quality
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
64
title quality
Rise of Agentic AI Report
“A well-structured research report with solid MECE pillar dividers and strong data titles, but weakened by 20+ quote/filler slides that reuse the report title as a headline and a 25-slide firm-marketing tail that buries the client imperative — use its section architecture (pp 16/22/46/60/68) as a teaching example, not its openings or its close.”
↓ Roughly 1-in-5 slides use 'Rise of agentic AI: How trust is the key to human-AI collaboration' as the headline (quote and transition pages), abdicating the action-title discipline and forcing the callout to carry the argument
64
title quality
Presentation Half Year Results 260723 ENG FINAL VERSION
“A competent corporate earnings deck with disciplined callouts and several strong action titles, but its three-act structure is a reporting template rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for callout and action-title patterns on data slides, not as an exemplar of pillared storytelling.”
↓ Section dividers are categorical buckets, not strategic pillars — Financials/Business/Outlook is the default earnings template, not a MECE argument
62
title quality
Now decides next: Getting real about Generative AI
“A competent Deloitte thought-leadership report with a clean two-act skeleton and some strong action titles, but it buries its hook and repeats its section title as slide titles — use pp.9, 10, 22, 25 as examples of good declarative writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 4 pages on cover/TOC/foreword before any substantive claim; thesis never stated in first 3 slides
62
title quality
COVID-19 Business Recovery Vancouver
“A competent McKinsey scenario-and-learnings deck with disciplined three-pillar scaffolding and good quantified titles on data pages, but it buries its thesis at the open and dilutes its recommendation at the close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Opening is a slow burn — agenda on p.3 and a topic-label scenario chart on p.4 delay the thesis; no answer-first slide in the first 5 pages
62
title quality
Secure your future people experience Five imperatives for action
“A textbook MECE-pillar consulting deck with strong case-study evidence and a clean five-act body, but a buried opener and an essay-style close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Soft close: p.31-32 read like an essay coda rather than a recommendation slide; no prioritization, sequencing, or 'where to start' guidance
62
title quality
LIVING BUSINESS Achieving Sustainable Growth Through Hyper-Relevance
“A solid thought-leadership report with genuinely MECE pillars and strong analytical titles in the build-up, but fragment-style pillar slides and a missing recommendation act make it a useful teaching example for framework structure, not for full Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Pillar content slides (p14, p17, p21, p24, p27) all use colon-fragment titles like 'Companies should:' - reads as a placeholder for bullets, not a Storymakers action title
62
title quality
TEF Application Evaluation 2019
“Solid descriptive evaluation report with strong insight-bearing analysis titles, but it lacks SCQA tension and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative architecture.”
↓ No resolution or call-to-action — the deck ends mid-analysis on p.27 ('ALL 36 STATES AND THE FCT WERE REPRESENTED…') and rolls straight into the appendix
62
title quality
THE IPSOS POPULISM REPORT 2025
“A well-instrumented, data-rich pollster report with strong individual trend titles but no resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles on chart slides, not as a structural Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — deck ends on a spending data table (p.55) and a contact slide (p.58)
62
title quality
ey global ipo trends 2023 q4
“A competent quarterly market report with a sound geographic spine and several sharp action titles, but it reads as an analytical dump that buries a generic recommendation behind the appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast (insight titles vs «(Cont'd)» topic labels), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Eight slides titled with «(Cont'd)» variants (p.16–19, p.28–30, p.23) — these are topic labels, not action titles, and signal an analytical dump
60
title quality
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page