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
146 matching · page 5 / 7
65
title quality
ey global consumer health survey 23 global findings and highlights v2
“A research-report-as-deck: solid quote-titled findings and a usable 2x2, but structured as a six-country data catalog with no closing recommendation — use the country-slide titling style as a teaching example, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ 14 slides titled 'Summary, continued' (pp.6-11, 13-15, 17-19) — a navigational failure that destroys reader orientation and signals the deck wasn't given proper action titles
64
title quality
UNC Chapel Hill Cost Diagnostic
“A competent Bain diagnostic with a clear options inventory but soft narrative framing and lazy pagination titles — use p.14 as a teaching example of an insight-bearing title, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: 5 slides of front-matter before the key findings on p.6
64
title quality
Talent trends 2020 Upskilling: Building confidence in an uncertain world Findings from PwC’s 23rd Annual Global CEO Surv
“A PwC thought-leadership PDF with a recognizable narrative spine and a few genuinely strong action titles, but it dilutes its own argument with topic-label sub-sections and a soft, generic recommendation — useful as a teaching example for the p11/p14 titles and the 'More talk than action' tension move, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Numbered challenge slides p15-p18 collapse to topic labels ('What skills to teach', 'Paying for it') instead of carrying the insight in the title
64
title quality
Digital Maturity Index Survey 2022
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with solid trend-level action titles and a clean archetype build, but it opens slowly, labels its archetype section as topics, and stops short of a synthesized recommendation — usable as a teaching example for quantified trend titles, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ Opening buries the headline: TOC at p.2, abstract exec summary at p.3, methodology deferred to p.8 — the 'EBIT uplift' thesis doesn't appear until p.4 and isn't quantified in a title anywhere
62
title quality
Bridging the Skills Gap in the Future Workforce
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear problem→answer→ask spine, but it breaks its own 'three steps' MECE promise and hides insights behind generic chart labels — use p.7, p.20, and p.22 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Missing STEP TWO and STEP THREE dividers — the MECE promise made on p.16 is never kept, so pp.22 and 25 read as a stream rather than parallel pillars
62
title quality
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
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
Sovereign Debt Restructuring
“A competent policy-brief deck with one strong, repeated quantified insight, but it buries the thesis behind heavy front matter and topic-label timelines - useful as a teaching example for repeated-stat reinforcement and case-comparator structure, not for opening or MECE pillaring.”
↓ Front matter consumes 21% of the deck (pp.1-3 cover/disclaimer/TOC) before any insight lands
62
title quality
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
62
title quality
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
62
title quality
PwC Golden Age index Unlocking a potential $3.5 trillion prize from longer working lives
“A solid analyst-led research report with strong answer-first opening and quantified action titles in the core build, but the recommendation lands mid-deck and the close trails off into benchmark and correlation appendices — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and exec-summary framing, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendation buried at p.25 of 57 with no closing reprise — the deck ends in correlation analysis (p.50) before methodology
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
Morgan Stanley Investor Presentation
“A competent IR deck with a clean three-pillar strategy spine but a missing Complication and a drifting close — use p.13-15 as a teaching example of pillared recommendation, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No explicit Complication: the deck asserts strength but never frames the tension (rate environment, student-loan policy risk, federal competition) the strategy is meant to resolve
60
title quality
Value untangled Amplify speed to value through interoperability
“A solid Accenture research report with an intact SCQA spine and good quantified evidence, but it opens slowly, lets recommendation titles collapse to topic labels, and closes on a restatement rather than a call to action — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure and case-study placement, not for opening hooks or closes.”
↓ Opening burns five slides on context before the thesis lands at p9 — no answer-first hook
60
title quality
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor stability in an unstable world
“A solid thought-leadership research report with disciplined section structure but written as an essay, not a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of pillar organization and section-divider headlines, not of answer-first openings or actionable closes.”
↓ Five identical 'Concluding thoughts' titles (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) waste the highest-leverage slot in each section
60
title quality
ei strategy presentation
“A competent asset-manager credentials deck with two or three exemplary insight-titles, but structurally a topic-dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a counter-example for openings and CTAs, not as a model arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening: the first 5 slides credential the firm instead of stating the strategy's thesis or the client's stake.
58
title quality
From survive to thrive Achieving tech transformation for communication service providers’ future
“A competent diagnostic-and-recommendations consulting deck with a clean three-pillar spine (p18-21) but topic-label titles and a buried call-to-action — use the transition slide and numbered recommendations as a Storymakers teaching example, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation on p8 ('Modern IT systems: A source of competitive advantage') arrives before the problem is fully framed on p9-10, muddying the S→C→A→R order
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
Value untangled Accelerating radical growth through interoperability
“Solid research-report-as-deck with a strong opening hook and disciplined three-part recommendation, but it buries the call-to-action and lets title quality drift in the back half — use the opening (p.4-6) and the recommendation pillar (p.26-32) as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit CTA or 'next steps' slide — closes on a thesis restatement (p.37) then jumps to methodology
58
title quality
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA
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
Presentation+Leonardo+GS+Investor+Meeting
“A competent IR reporting deck with a thesis-first opening and several strong metric-bearing action titles, but fragmented by six agenda resets and fizzled by a financial-appendix ending — useful as a teaching example for numeric action titles (p.8, p.26, p.30), not for narrative arc or closing craft.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.2, 11, 21, 33, 35, 42) act as inert section gates instead of insight-bearing pillar dividers
58
title quality
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
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