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
374 matching · page 8 / 16
72
title quality
The Inflation Reduction Act: Here’s what’s in it
“A competent McKinsey policy explainer with disciplined money-throughline and several strong quantified titles, but it is structurally an analytical primer — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never names a Complication or lands a Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — deck ends on p.11 fiscal chart then jumps straight to author bios (p.12)
72
title quality
A pivot for Germany
“A competent survey-results readout with strong title hygiene but no narrative arc — useful as an exemplar of action-titled findings slides, not as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'Germany is optimistic' to recommendations without surfacing the threat the pivot answers
72
title quality
IIF/McKinsey Cyber Resilience Survey
“A competent McKinsey survey deck with strong action titles in the diagnosis section but a buried thesis and a collapsed ending — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and quantified callouts, not as a model of full SCQA narrative architecture.”
↓ First 5 slides are all front matter and methodology; the thesis is buried — by p.5 a reader still doesn't know what the deck argues
72
title quality
Deloitte 2023 CxO Sustainability Report
“A competent research-report-as-deck with strong per-page action titles on the analytical spine but weak framing pages and a generic recommendation close — use pp. 5, 8, 14, 16 as a teaching example of good action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven near-identical «What leaders are saying about …» quote slides (pp. 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19) are topic labels, not insights, and flatten the narrative pace
72
title quality
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
72
title quality
Ipsos Global Advisor Earth Day 2023 Full Report WEB
“A competent Ipsos research tour with above-average action titles and pillar dividers, but it ends in a methodology-and-thank-you whimper with no recommendation — use the middle title craft as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on p.44 "THANK YOU" and p.45 "ABOUT IPSOS" with zero so-what
72
title quality
ey digital survey shaping the new normal
“A competent, well-titled regional-survey topic dump with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not of story structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation — deck ends on a data slide (p41) and a 'Contact us' (p42), with zero 'so what' for the reader
72
title quality
article thebeatmar2025
“A monthly market chartbook with a strong answer-first opening and ~15 well-titled thesis slides, but the back half is an unstructured data reference with no closing recommendation — use slides 3-17 as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a correlation table (p.51) and team bio (p.54), never restating or evolving the Top 4 Ideas from p.4
72
title quality
Morgan+Stanley+Conference+Presentation
“A competent investor-conference showcase with strong action titles and a quantitative spine, but it is a parade of proof points rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative structure or closes.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action; deck dies into a disclaimer at p.10 and a brand plate at p.11
72
title quality
KSA Banking Pulse Q3 2024
“A competent quarterly data-pulse with strong insight-bearing action titles and consistent callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc test — no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close — so use it to teach action-title writing, not narrative structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening — p.1-p.5 never state the deck's thesis; the reader waits until p.7 to learn earnings grew 5.3%
72
title quality
Global gas outlook to 2050
“A credible thought-leadership 'perspective' with strong metric-bearing action titles, but structurally a methodology-and-data dump that buries its thesis and has no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF: the thesis is never stated in the first three slides; opening is dominated by model inventory (p3) and scenario taxonomy (p4)
72
title quality
American Express Investor Day 2024
“A disciplined, thesis-led investor-day deck with genuine MECE pillars and metric-rich action titles -- a useful Storymakers exemplar for opening structure and pillar architecture, but its navigation bloat and missing complication act make it a partial, not whole-deck, teaching reference.”
↓ Heavy navigation overhead: ~15 'Today's Focus' transitions plus 'Key Takeaways' bookends inflate the page count without adding insight
72
title quality
Nielsen 2022 Audio Today How America Listens Jun22 FINAL
“A data-driven advocacy deck for radio that opens with a strong hook and insight-bearing titles but has no complication, no recommendation, and ends in an appendix — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never poses a tension for advertisers nor recommends an action
72
title quality
2021 q4 earnings results presentation
“A competently-staged maiden-earnings deck with strong title discipline on body slides, but structurally it is a performance report with a forecast appended, not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft on analytical pages, not as a model for act structure or closing punch.”
↓ No Complication/tension beat — Section 2 jumps from 'who we are' to 'we are delivering' with no 'what was at stake' slide
72
title quality
2019 cb investor day ba56d0e8
“A polished investor-day capabilities deck with strong quantitative titles but no real tension or resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names a problem, competitor threat, or 'so what changes' moment
72
title quality
cb q1 2024 ie outlook report
“A competent JPM market-outlook brief with strong individual action titles but no narrative resolution — use slides 4, 6, 8 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on p.14 with an unresolved question and then a disclaimer
72
title quality
2019 am investor day ba56d0e8
“A competent investor-day strategy showcase with a clear three-pillar spine and quantified proof, but it skips the Complication and fumbles the close — useful as an exemplar of pillar tagging and metric-led titles, not of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never names a problem, threat, or 'why now', so it is proof without provocation
72
title quality
2022 asset wealth management investor day
“A solid investor-day analytical build with a memorable five-pillar spine, but it skips the complication act and ends on KPIs rather than a commitment — use p.7-11 as a teaching example of MECE pillar structure, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'we're growing' (p.3-4) straight to 'here's how we'll keep growing' (p.5+) without naming the threat
72
title quality
11 20230302 SDD How we measure and drive success
“A competent investor-relations ESG talk deck with a coherent spine and one strong insight title on p4, but soft complication and closing acts make it a solid example of structural flow — not a Storymakers exemplar for narrative tension or memorable close.”
↓ No complication/tension slide early on — p2 establishes context but the deck skips straight to the framework on p3 without stating what problem this solves
72
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Fixed Income Call
“A competent IR disclosure deck with above-average action titles in the first 14 slides, but it lacks SCQA tension, has no real closing ask, and is dominated by a topic-labelled appendix — useful as a reference for declarative titling, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names what's hard (rates, CRE, TLTRO repayments), so analytical slides like p.25–27 read as disclosure, not narrative payoff
72
title quality
id18 utilizing technology
“A solid analytical investor-day deck with quantified action titles in the IT-spend and risk pillars, but weak opening, a repetitive client-journey middle, and no synthesized close — use the p.7-12 and p.42-43 sequences as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening (p.1-6) buries the thesis — no stakes, no SCQA setup, just cover + disclaimer + generic banner
70
title quality
Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter
“Solid BCG explanatory brief with a coherent 'leapfrogging' throughline and strong US-China benchmarking, but structured as analytical build-up rather than a Storymakers story — thesis buried, dividers blank, recommendations absent — so use the market-sizing and leapfrogging sections as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the 'leapfrogging' answer doesn't arrive until p.25/26, and there is no upfront thesis slide summarizing the deck's point of view
70
title quality
Digital Consumer Trends 2023
“A well-executed annual trends report with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc and no recommendation - use its title craft and callout discipline as a teaching example, not its structure.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on cost-of-living data (p.43) and a 'visit our hub' card (p.44), with zero recommendation or so-what
70
title quality
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements