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
137 matching · page 4 / 6
64
title quality
Building Sustainable Organizations
“A competent thought-leadership report with an early thesis and clear three-pillar spine, but the case-study run and closing undersell the recommendation — use the opening (pp.2-5) and problem-framing (p.11) as Storymakers exemplars, not the back half.”
↓ Case-study titles on pp.21-24 are company names, not extracted lessons — no insight portability
64
title quality
Strategy at the Pace of Technology
“Solid analytical Accenture build with a textbook two-pillar MECE structure and a real recommendation slide, but a flabby front matter and a closing-divider whimper keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use p.15-22 as the teaching example for pillar dividers, not the opening or close.”
↓ Two slides (p.4, p.6) carry the identical deck-title 'Strategy at the pace of technology' as their action title - wasted real estate
64
title quality
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
64
title quality
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017
“Rigorous, defensible public-sector budget-analysis report with a strong quantified thesis up front and clean MECE pillars, but it reads as a reference document rather than a Storymakers deck — use the exec summary (p.7-9) and impact rollup (p.118-127) as teaching exemplars, not the overall structure or the tail.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends on scenario table p.183 and appendix p.185-190, so the reader has no 'therefore, decide X' moment
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
20230215 Q422 FI Investor Presentation vFFF
“A competently structured FY22 fixed-income investor deck with strong MECE pillars and good metric-driven titles in the Performance section, but it is an analytical pillar-walk not a Storymakers arc — use its section architecture and action-title patterns as teaching material, not its opening or close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends on ESG ratings (p51) then appendix, leaving the reader with no 'therefore'
62
title quality
Innovate or Fade European businesses need to address the technology deficit to turn the tide
“A solidly structured three-pillar thought-leadership deck with a quantified hook and MECE prescriptions, but it buries its call to action in a one-line conclusion — use p.13/p.17/p.25 as a teaching example for numbered pillars, not as an example of how to close.”
↓ Closing is anemic: p.29 'Conclusion' with no numbered actions, deadlines, or owner — the deck dies before the appendix
62
title quality
The disability inclusion imperative
“A well-evidenced thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and clean pillar rhythm, but it labels rather than argues in its titles and fizzles into inspiration instead of a concrete call to action — use the business-case section (p.10-17) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the whole deck.”
↓ Three separate slides (p.3, p.4, p.36) reuse the generic title 'The disability inclusion imperative' — title repetition signals topic labeling, not action titling
62
title quality
Global tech report 2022
“A competent thematic survey report with strong individual data slides but a weak Storymakers spine — useful as an example of section-divider rhythm and quote/case-study texture, not as a model for answer-first narrative architecture.”
↓ No answer-first opener: p.4 'The headline numbers' is a label and the thesis never appears in the first 5 slides
62
title quality
Brazil Education Technology Market L.E.K. Perspectives
“A competent analytical research deck with solid quantified findings but placeholder section titles and a watchlist-as-ending — useful as a teaching example of strong market-landscape action titles, not as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ Four separate 'Key observations based on the performance of the Brazil stock index…' slides (p.3, 4, 7, 10) with identical titles — placeholder section headers masquerading as takeaway slides
62
title quality
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing
62
title quality
Spring 2022 National Client Meeting
“An event-agenda deck dressed as a strategy story — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.45, p.46, p.56) but a weak Storymakers exemplar overall because it has no resolution and stitches three independent narratives together.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on Netflix-content trends (p.59–62) and 'Thank you!' (p.65) with zero recommendation, ask, or next-step — the closing_ask tag is misleading.
62
title quality
Vehicle-as-a-Service From vehicle ownership to usage-based subscription models
“A disciplined Deloitte industry POV with a strong answer-first opening and a rallying close — usable as a Storymakers exemplar for S→C→A→R framing and call-to-action craft, but the middle analytical pillars are a cautionary tale on MECE sprawl and topic-label titles.”
↓ Eight numbered sections with overlapping scope — 05 LTV and 06 Operating Model read as the same idea split in two
62
title quality
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
62
title quality
luxury2019
“An EY luxury factbook with a memorable hook and exemplary financial-chart titling in its middle act, but no resolution and lazy navigation — use pp.12–29 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a story arc.”
↓ Closing dissolves into four near-duplicate 'How can luxury fashion embrace digital?' slides (pp.75–78) with no synthesis or recommendation — the deck ends without answering its own opening question
62
title quality
Q125 Results Presentation
“A disciplined bank earnings readout with strong group-level action titles but topic-label divisional openers and a thin narrative frame — useful as an exemplar of numeric headlines on group slides, not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Division-opener KPI dashboards (p.4, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24) are topic labels, not action titles — they waste the prime spot of each section
62
title quality
tifs investor presentation deutsche bank 17 june 21
“Competent IR deck with strong quantified middle-section titles but a weak hook and no closing ask — use the p.10–13 diversification/market-position slides as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on a margin-expansion chart (p.33) and then jumps to Appendix with no recap of the investment case
58
title quality
Global Banking Consumer Study Reignite human connections to discover hidden value
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE discipline and a strong hook, but it opens with context and closes with recap — use Chapter 2's pivot-to-play nesting as a teaching example of MECE layering, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 7 pages of 'forces' before the reader is told what to do about them
58
title quality
Stepping Up the Pace Manufacturing
“A competent Cognizant thought-leadership report with a legible three-act pillar structure and strong benchmarking evidence, but it buries its recommendation and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for MECE section dividers and leader-vs-laggard storytelling, not for answer-first opening or decisive closing.”
↓ No answer-first opening — neither cover (p.1) nor intro (p.3) states the recommendation; reader must reach p.14-16 to see the 'copy the leaders' thesis
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
KPMG global tech report 2024
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong stat-anchored mid-section titles and a real conclusion+CTA arc, but it organizes findings instead of telling a story — useful as an example of pillar discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: p.1-5 are cover, TOC, foreword, methodology, and a teaser before the first insight slide at p.7
58
title quality
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
58
title quality
G@ Earth Day 2021
“A well-opened research report with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it ends in a topic-labelled data dump with no recommendation — use p.2–3 and p.8–10 as teaching examples for hooks and insight titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication or call-to-action slide — deck ends with 'THANK YOU' (p.44) and 'ABOUT IPSOS' (p.45) after a disclaimer
58
title quality
Investor Presentation Deck
“A competent investor-relations positioning deck with a solid financial middle section but no complication, no recommendation, and titles that hide their numbers — useful as a 'callout-writing' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: eight context slides (p.3-10) stack positioning without ever naming a threat, gap, or decision the reader must make