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 6 / 7
58
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2025 Presentation
“A textbook earnings-deck opening married to an appendix-heavy tail — use p.2–p.6 as a teaching example of thesis-first framing, but not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation behind a premature appendix divider.”
↓ Premature 'Appendix' divider at p.20 buries the actual close (p.21 '2025 financial targets' recommend, p.22 shareholder distribution commitment) inside what readers will skip
55
title quality
2022: a record year for MENA IPOs
“A competent EY-style market report with strong pull-quotes and a real underlying thesis (MENA decoupling), but structured as a geographic data tour rather than an argument — useful as a reference for headline-metric framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative construction.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.8–11) share the identical title 'MENA IPO performance for 2022 listed companies' — readers cannot distinguish them in a TOC or thumbnail view
55
title quality
NBI 2023 Press Release Supplemental Deck December 23
“A competent research-report deck with a strong mid-section of declarative KDA titles, but it buries its Japan headline behind four methodology slides and ends in appendix/boilerplate — use pp.21–22 as a title-craft exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Thesis buried: it takes 9 pages to reach the Japan headline; a press-release deck should lead with it on slide 1 or 2
55
title quality
ey global ipo trends 2022 v1
“A competently-opened thought-leadership piece with strong stat hooks and one clean MECE pillar, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends on a hedge — useful as an example of strong opening framing, not of a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck trails off into a repeated hedge title on pp.10-11 and a disclaimer on p.12
54
title quality
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS MONITOR
“A thought-leadership research report with a strong counter-intuitive opening that gradually devolves into a topic-by-topic analytical dump with no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for hooks and section dividers, not for a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Six slides titled 'Concluding thoughts' (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) — repetitive, generic, and forfeit the chance to land the per-section punchline in the title
52
title quality
Market Year in Review and Outlook 2021
“A competent industry-association data briefing with a few exemplary action titles and callouts, but structurally an analytical dump with empty dividers, mid-deck methodology, and a non-sequitur close — useful as a teaching example for individual slide titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ p.4 section divider wastes a structural slot by just repeating the deck title instead of naming the pillar
52
title quality
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
52
title quality
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
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
48
title quality
PEOPLE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
“A competent insights report with pockets of strong action-titled storytelling, but it leans on repeated topic labels and a 40-page data appendix that buries its own recommendation — useful as a teaching example for individual insight titles (p9, p15, p20, p26), not for overall structure.”
↓ Title fatigue: 'Perceptions and understanding of climate risks' is used as the title for six distinct slides (p6, p8, p12, p13, p14, p16), making the deck feel like a topic dump instead of an argument
48
title quality
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible
45
title quality
Tillsonburg IT Strategic Review
“A competently structured public-sector advisory deck with a clear S-C-A-R spine and strong callouts, but undercut by topic-label titles and a slow opener — useful as a teaching example of clean section flow, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Slow opening: five slides of front matter/scaffolding before the stakes land (p.1–5)
45
title quality
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
42
title quality
An Introduction to Our Group Oct 2025
“A polished corporate capabilities brochure, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a cautionary example of how pillar dividers and proud proof points cannot substitute for a thesis, complication, and recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA: the deck never names a business complication a reader should care about — it only asserts capability
42
title quality
IBV The Cognitive Enterprise
“A competent IBM thought-leadership brief with the right ingredients (client cases, a stake stat, next steps) but undermined by repeated topic-label titles and an invisible pillar structure — useful as a teaching example of why action-titling and section dividers matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides reuse the identical title 'The Cognitive Enterprise: The finance opportunity' (p.4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18), erasing any sense of forward motion
40
title quality
Everest Group RCM Operations
“A reprinted analyst-report vendor profile with one good action title (p.4) and six dead topic-label slides — useful as a negative example for Storymakers training on action titles and missing closes, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Cognizant profile (page N of 6)' slides (p.5–p.10) are a topic dump with zero insight-bearing titles — the reader cannot scan and know what each page claims
40
title quality
US Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Report
“A competent annual DEI progress report with a clean three-pillar MECE spine and strong human case studies, but its topic-labeled titles, absent recommendation, and self-congratulatory close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar architecture as a teaching moment, not the titling or the ending.”
↓ Data slides (p.10–15) are labeled by topic ('New Hires', 'Representation by Groups') rather than by insight, so the reader never learns what the numbers prove
38
title quality
Annual Report 2018
“A compliance-driven annual report dressed as a strategy story — useful as a counter-example of how regulator-mandated structure crushes Storymakers narrative, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA opening — first five pages contain zero stakes-setting; the strategic narrative does not begin until ~p.21 ('How we create value')
38
title quality
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
38
title quality
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
35
title quality
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway
34
title quality
Global Fashion & Luxury Private Equity and Investors Survey 2021
“A credibility-heavy Deloitte research report with strong evidence density and a front-loaded takeaways block, but structurally an analytical dump: topic-label titles, no resolution, and a close that reverts to respondent demographics — useful as a teaching example of 'how to carry a metric in every callout', not of Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Closing sequence p.52–56 is respondent profile, not recommendation — the deck ends on 'who answered the survey' rather than 'what investors should do'
32
title quality
Beyond thenoise: Orchestrating AI-driven customer excellence
“A thorough KPMG research whitepaper with a usable 7-step middle act, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on titling, opening hook, and closing — use the 7-step implementation spine as a teaching example for sequential build, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Implementing AI' is reused on five separate slides (p.23, 25, 28, 32, 35) and 'Highlights from the 2024 CEE research' on three (p.5, 11, 12) — placeholder titling, not action titles
25
title quality
Ipsos Global Health Service Monitor 2023 WEB
“A well-organized survey data report, not a Storymakers deck — use the section scaffolding and THE HEADLINES pattern as a navigational example, but it is an anti-example of action titling and has no closing argument.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' act: the deck ends in appendix + methodology + corporate slide (p.30–p.45) with zero synthesis