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 9 / 16
70
title quality
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
70
title quality
The Quantum Technology Monitor December 2020
“A competent state-of-the-market monitor with strong declarative analytical titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — use the middle slides as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis on slides 1-3 — the reader has to wait until p.4 to learn the deck's point of view
70
title quality
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
70
title quality
Digital Luxury Experience
“A solid mid-tier consulting deck with a clean three-pillar frame and strong analytical titles in the Experience section, but it opens slowly, under-delivers on Enterprise/E-future, and closes without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the middle, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the first five pages — the thesis is deferred until p.6 and never crisply stated
70
title quality
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
70
title quality
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
70
title quality
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
70
title quality
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
70
title quality
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
70
title quality
The age of Generative AI: Unveiling the next frontier of digital procurement
“A solid McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong individual titles and a clean two-pillar back half, but a context-heavy opening and a soft 'Closing note' close make it a useful teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening (pp.1–5) is pure context with no thesis — reader must wait 5+ slides for the point
70
title quality
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a thesis-first open and a real recommendation close, but the middle is a trend-report dump without MECE pillars - useful as a teaching example for action-title quantification, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No MECE section dividers - slides 4-13 are an undifferentiated industry_trends run with no signposting of where the argument is going
70
title quality
250114 FRE prsn JPM SFO 0
“A competent investor-day narrative with a strong, memorable close but a context-heavy opening and missing complication act — useful as an example of declarative action titles and a portable closing equation, not as a model of full S-C-A-R structure.”
↓ No explicit 'complication' slide — the deck never states the tension or why-now that justifies the strategic reset
70
title quality
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward
70
title quality
TSN Barclays Consumer Staples FINAL
“A well-structured investor outlook deck with a crisp Grow/Deliver/Sustain spine and mostly declarative titles, but it lacks tension and ends on 'Thank you' — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline and action-title craft, not of full SCQA narrative.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the story is all reassurance, which flattens the narrative into an analytical dump despite the clean pillar structure
70
title quality
Arion Bank Fireside chat slides
“A competent investor-update deck with strong quantified action titles and clean macro framing, but it is analytical reportage rather than a Storymakers narrative — use pp.7–10 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication or tension: the deck never names what is at stake or what decision the audience must make
70
title quality
Q1 2025 Fixed Income Call
“Competent fixed-income investor update with a disciplined answer-first opening and strong main-body action titles, but it collapses at the close ('Summary and outlook') and leans on a bloated 25-slide appendix — use the p.2-p.14 arc as a teaching example for answer-first sequencing, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Weak close: p.15 'Summary and outlook' is a topic label with no stated outlook, no recommendation, and no memorable takeaway
68
title quality
Investor Analyst Conference
“A competent investor-conference results parade with genuinely strong declarative titles in the analytical middle, but it lacks narrative tension, MECE pillar scaffolding, and a real close -- use p.6/p.11/p.13 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p.14-16) share the exact same title 'Highlights of our 360 value for all our stakeholders' -- signals a topic dump where pillar discipline should live
68
title quality
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
68
title quality
Technology Trust Ethics Preparing the workforce for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI: C-suite perspectives
“A competent survey-findings report with strong stat-led slide titles but weak narrative architecture — useful as a teaching example for action titles at the slide level, not for deck-level Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never states why ethical AI readiness is urgent or what goes wrong without it
68
title quality
Global Consumer Insights March 2021
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, but the soft opening detour and a vague one-page close make it a strong example of pillar discipline rather than of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ Pages 4–6 sit between the cover and the framework reveal on p.7, delaying the promised 'four fault lines' structure and reading like orphan category data
68
title quality
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4 2022
“A competent quarterly market bulletin with a strong opening and quotable callouts, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title openings and TCO framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.21–23 with three identical 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables, then contacts, then 'Thank you' — zero recommendations or implications for OEMs/policymakers.
68
title quality
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
68
title quality
Consumers at 250
“A competently titled survey-findings report with a strong 'X vs. Y' pillar device, but it stops at analysis and never resolves into a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension framing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendations or 'so what' slide — deck dies on an industry data table (p.30)
68
title quality
Executive Compensation at Deloitte Delivering global insight and expertise
“A competent capabilities brochure with a few strong benchmarking action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is mid-tier — useful to teach title-writing in the middle section, not to teach narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No complication or 'so what' — the deck presents market facts (p.3-7) without telling the reader why these trends threaten or pressure them