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 4 / 6
60
title quality
mercury rising
“A polished thought-leadership trends report with strong callouts and evidence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a teaching case for analytical-survey decks that miss the answer-first opening and recommendation-led close — use the callout craft, not the structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the foreword/exec-summary pairing (pp.3–4) defers the thesis instead of leading with it
60
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Presentation
“A textbook bank-earnings deck with a strong declarative opening but a tail-heavy, recommendation-free close — useful as a Storymakers example for action-title openings, not as a model for full narrative arc.”
↓ Segment slides p16-p20 use division names as titles instead of insight statements
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
Better Processes for Data Analytics Insights
“A polished but structurally flat case-study catalog — useful as a sales sample bag, weak as a Storymakers exemplar; mine the quantified callouts for action-title rewrites, but do not use the deck's overall structure as a teaching reference.”
↓ No SCQA framing — p.2 'Our philosophy' is an aspirational statement, not a Situation/Complication that motivates the eight cases that follow
58
title quality
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding
58
title quality
Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025
“A competent Ipsos data-release brief with two genuinely insightful titles, but structurally a findings dump with no SCQA arc and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how strong individual insights get buried by a topic-led running order.”
↓ Slides 4–6 reuse the survey-question text verbatim as titles, abdicating the action-title discipline
58
title quality
Tenth Annual Leveraged Finance and Credit Conference
“A competent investor-relations deck with a workable resilience narrative but a buried answer, a broken appendix boundary, and a logo-only close — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence chaining (p.7-9) but weak as a Storymakers exemplar of arc, dividers, and closing.”
↓ Closing slide (p.26) is just the company logo — no CTA, no summary, no ask
58
title quality
Fresenius SE 2023 06 13 14 Goldman Sachs 44th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
“A standard corporate IR deck with disciplined callouts and one strong transformation thesis (ReSet→ReVitalize) that is buried on p.18 and never re-asserted at close — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label dividers and an appendix-heavy tail dilute an otherwise defensible narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.18 — first 5 slides are cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider/generic context with no stakes or answer-first framing
58
title quality
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
55
title quality
IBV Research Report
“A solid three-pillar research report with the right analytical skeleton and a real recommendations close, but it buries its headline stat, under-uses section dividers, and leans on topic-label titles — teach the pillar structure, not the opening or the titling.”
↓ Headline stat (36% revenue/efficiency lift from analytics-led innovation) is buried on p.5 instead of driving the cover or exec summary
55
title quality
Agile Transformation
“A stat-rich KPMG survey report with a competent three-pillar diagnosis and good case-study cadence, but the thesis is buried at p.30, the close is a service pitch followed by 11 appendix pages, and pillars exist only in title prefixes — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored analytical builds, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ 11 of 42 pages (p.32-42) are appendix/country-background — over a quarter of the deck dumps undifferentiated country snapshots ('Background – Belgium', 'Background - Brazil', etc.) that read as raw survey output
55
title quality
Navigating payments matrix
“A well-researched thematic walkthrough of payments trends with a genuinely useful 4 Rs framework, but it reads more like a magazine feature than a tight Storymakers argument — use the framework slides (p.21-23) as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.24-28) drift into regional trends and quotes with no call-to-action — the deck fizzles
55
title quality
Capturing opportunities today, reinventing for tomorrow
“A competently structured three-act CEO-survey deck with a real recommendation page but weak title craft and a buried hook - useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline, not of action-title writing.”
↓ The killer stat (60% survival concern, p.3 foreword callout) is buried instead of opening the deck
55
title quality
Goldman Sachs Sixteenth Annual ANZ Investment Forum Presentation
“A competent corporate IR/forum overview with clean section architecture but topic-label titles in the segments block, no complication, and an appendix that duplicates the main narrative — useful as an example of MECE structure and occasional declarative financial titles, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Operating-group section uses the segment name as the slide title 3-4 times each (slides 28-36 and again 63-66) — readers can't tell pages apart by title alone
55
title quality
Calumet+Inc.+Carbonomics+Investor+Presentation+Final+11+Nov.+'24
“A competent investor deck with strong quantified callouts and clean two-pillar segmentation, but it buries the recommendation mid-deck and closes on reconciliations — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and segment structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slides 27–30 are EBITDA/segment reconciliations and p.31 is a bare 'CALUMET' logo — no recommendation, no next steps, no memorable close
55
title quality
Barclays H1 2023 Review of Shareholder Activism 002 1
“A data-rich but structurally flat market review — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts and geographic MECE, but a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation gut the Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends at p.15 and transitions straight to contacts + appendix.
55
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q2 2023 Presentation
“A competent bank earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening but an analytical, tension-free middle and a near-absent close — useful as an example of declarative summary titles, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No Complication act — every callout reinforces 'momentum' and 'growth'; tensions (inflationary cost pressure p11, credit-loss upper-range guidance p12, litigation p37) are mentioned but never elevated into a narrative pivot
54
title quality
People&ClimateChange2025
“A competently reported syndicated-research deck with flashes of strong action-title writing but a buried recommendation and a 40-slide country-data tail — use the p.9/p.15/p.26 insights as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is buried: the only prescriptive slide (p.25 'Three things to bring consumers along') sits mid-deck with no visual weight or escalation
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
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
52
title quality
Retail banking survey Sustainability and retail banking
“Competent short-form thought-leadership whitepaper with a clear risk thesis but topic-label titles and a thin recommendation - useful as a teaching example for callout writing and S->C->A->R skeleton, not for action-title craft or closing punch.”
↓ Page titles are nouns/topics, not declarative insights - the strong callouts on p.4, p.6, p.8 should have been promoted to titles
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
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
52
title quality
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself