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
726 matching · page 9 / 31
72
title quality
Audio today 2022 How America listens
“A thesis-driven Nielsen marketing deck with strong action titles and a memorable opening hook, but it collapses into a data dump with no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck dies in data tables (p.14-15) and a boilerplate corporate slide (p.16)
72
title quality
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
72
title quality
Digitizing Make in India Report 2024
“A disciplined sector-intelligence report with exemplary parallel sub-structure inside Section 02, but it reads like an analytical reference manual rather than a Storymakers narrative — use the sunrise-sector template as a teaching example for MECE sub-pillars, not as a model for opening or closing a deck.”
↓ No answer-first opening: two 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' pages (pp. 5-6) use the label as the title instead of stating the thesis, and the first insight-bearing action title doesn't appear until p. 10.
72
title quality
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
72
title quality
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
72
title quality
Banking Consumer Study 2025
“A genuinely strong Storymakers exemplar for pillar architecture and imperative recommendation titles, weakened only by a soft, metaphor-led opening and figure pages that hide their insight in the caption.”
↓ Opening is soft: cover is metaphorical (p.1), TOC + methodology occupy p.2–3, and there is no answer-first slide stating the recommendation before the build-up begins.
72
title quality
SOUTHEAST ASIA’S GREEN ECONOMY 2024
“A thorough, well-pillared climate-intelligence report with a real S-C-A-R spine and strong analytical titling in the middle — use it as a teaching example for MECE section structure and stakeholder-segmented CTAs, but not for openings or closings, since the thesis arrives on p.16 and the calls to action are buried before a 30-page country appendix.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: first 5 slides are pure front-matter and pp.6-9 are four sequential forewords before any analytical content
72
title quality
Creating the best SME Debt finance ecosystem
“A structurally exemplary three-act consulting deck with strong diagnostic action titles, but it hedges its recommendations and wastes its executive summary headers — use Section 1 as the teaching example for action-titled diagnosis, not the closing as a recommendation template.”
↓ Executive summary slides 4-8 use pagination titles ('EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1/5…5/5') instead of carrying the five claims they contain — the most expensive real estate in the deck wasted
72
title quality
Education: 2023 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2024
“A competent thought-leadership / BD deck with metric-led titles in the retrospective half but no thesis upfront and no recommendation at the close — use the 2023 retrospective (pp. 6-15) and the AI mini-arc (pp. 39-42) as title-craft teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No thesis slide upfront — p.5 names 'four key themes' but the title doesn't enumerate them, forcing readers to discover them across 10+ slides
72
title quality
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025: Hong Kong summary
“Solid analytical mid-deck with good action titles in the segment dives, but a weak thesis-free opening and a tangential Gen AI tail leave it as a useful teaching example for MECE segment build-up — not for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No SCQA hook in opening — p.4-5 establish scope without naming the central question or answer
72
title quality
[Presentation title] 6th ICO / STO Report
“A competent market-update report with strong individual action titles but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for title-writing and callouts, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'Executive Summary' is a label, not an answer — a true exec summary should state the thesis in the title
72
title quality
COVID-19 BCG Perspectives Publication #5 with a focus on Revamping Organizations for the New Reality
“A hybrid briefing/publication with a strong analytical spine but no resolution act — use the economic-scenarios section (p.28-35) as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends at p.38 and drops straight into appendix (p.39-42), disclaimer (p.44), and contact (p.45)
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
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
Southeast Asia's Green Economy
“A disciplined, MECE-structured co-branded report with a clean S-C-A-R spine and unusually tight quantitative reconciliation — use its chapter skeleton and exec-summary sequencing as a teaching example, but not its opening (13 pages of forewords before the thesis) or its appendix-style country section.”
↓ Opening buried behind 13 pages of sponsor forewords (p.9-13) — the thesis on p.16 should be on p.1 or p.8
72
title quality
Ipsos SEA Ahead Shift + Sentiments 20211209
“A solid analytical research read-out with strong quantified action titles in its first pillar, but it functions as three stitched-together topic briefs rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as an example of action-title writing in the macro section, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis: p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' is a divider with no follow-through, then jumps straight to Q&A on p.34
72
title quality
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
72
title quality
Ipsos Public Trust in AI
“Solid analytical public-opinion deck with respectable action titles and a clean pillar structure, but it reads as a research readout rather than a recommendation-led Storymakers exemplar — use the mid-deck insight titles as a teaching reference, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Duplicate title 'Challenges and opportunities for employers' on p.20 and p.21 signals a topic-dump rather than a built argument
72
title quality
The evolving private equity playbook
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a recognizable SCQA spine and strong quantified middle, but the opening buries its hook behind front-matter and the close fragments the recommendation — use the p.7, p.13 and p.16 titles as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Case study on p.4 precedes the problem framing on p.6–7, so the reader sees a 'result' before understanding what problem it solves
72
title quality
ey global ipo trends 2023 q1 v1
“A competent quarterly market-update deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but no Resolution act — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.10 SPAC data and goes straight to Definitions/Contacts, leaving the reader without a recommendation
72
title quality
ey sports engagement index january 2025
“A competent research-report deck with strong action titles in the analytical core, but it is a topic-organized data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for arc construction.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.18 'we continue to track many other sports' with zero recommendations or implications for sports bodies, sponsors, or rights holders
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