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 43.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestions↑ Top 5 on closing
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A solid, clearly-structured Roland Berger advocacy deck with declarative titles and a punchy close — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title discipline and section dividers, but not for opening hooks or tight SCQA framing.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “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.” — Deloitte, 2021
- “A well-structured thought-leadership report with a clean six-pillar MECE spine and mostly insight-bearing body titles — use its divider architecture as a Storymakers exemplar, but not its opening or its generically-titled recommendations.” — Deloitte, 2022
- “Polished investor-day deck with strong action titles and a clean opening/closing thesis pair, but missing an explicit Complication and pillar signposting — use the title craft and closing pages as exemplars, not the overall narrative architecture.” — JPMorgan, 2022
- “A competent investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean closing arc, but front-matter-heavy and missing explicit MECE pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.9, p.13), not for overall structure.” — JPMorgan, 2025
- “Solid, disciplined analytical consulting report with a clean MECE five-finding spine and a rare, well-built closing playbook - use the recommendation slides (p25, p31, p41) as action-title exemplars, but not the persona or data sections, where titles regress to topic labels.” — Accenture, 2019
- “A solidly-built thought-leadership report with answer-first framing and a clear call to action, but over-long openings and under-signposted middle acts keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.22-30 as a teaching example of analysis-to-recommendation flow, not the deck's overall structure.” — Accenture, 2022
- “A competently structured Accenture thought-leadership report with a clean four-act story and a strong closing call to action - useful as a teaching example for section architecture and audience-segmented recommendations, but its delayed thesis and figure-caption titles keep it out of Storymakers-exemplar territory.” — Accenture, 2025
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 1 / 46
82
closing
Beyond good intentions
“A solid short-form point-of-view deck with clean SCQA bones and a strong three-pillar resolution — use p.10-13 as a teaching example of how to mirror a recommendation across slides, but nudge the opening and add dividers to make it truly exemplary.”
↓ p.3 'About this Report' is a generic front-matter label that stalls the opening instead of advancing the thesis
82
closing
Poverty Empowerment India
“Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.”
↓ p.14 'BACK UP' divider sits in the middle of the recommendation arc, not at the end — it fragments the resolution act
82
closing
Southeast Asia’s Green Economy 2022 Report
“A well-disciplined Bain/Temasek market report with strong action titles and a textbook four-action close - useful as a Storymakers exemplar for sector deep-dive structure and recommendation slides, but not for opening hooks or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Six identical section dividers (pp.41, 42, 47, 52, 60, 65) using the same question - reads as a placeholder, not MECE pillars
82
closing
The future of demand
“A well-structured thought-leadership deck with a clean SCQA arc and answer-first exec summary — strong Storymakers exemplar for opening/closing discipline, but the overlapping middle dividers make it a flawed template for teaching MECE pillar design.”
↓ Two middle dividers (p.6 and p.8) cover overlapping territory about customer-industry sustainability — breaks MECE
82
closing
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.
82
closing
A WORLD FOR TRAVEL NIMES SUMMIT
“A solid, clearly-structured Roland Berger advocacy deck with declarative titles and a punchy close — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title discipline and section dividers, but not for opening hooks or tight SCQA framing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer — five context slides (pp.4-8) before the travel-specific complication on p.9, and the 'five commitments' promise only surfaces on p.12
82
closing
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
82
closing
Women @ Work 2022: A Global Outlook
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with a clean six-pillar MECE spine and mostly insight-bearing body titles — use its divider architecture as a Storymakers exemplar, but not its opening or its generically-titled recommendations.”
↓ Opening buries the answer across a letter and two 'Executive summary'-titled pages (p.2–4) instead of one thesis slide
82
closing
2022 commercial banking investor day
“Polished investor-day deck with strong action titles and a clean opening/closing thesis pair, but missing an explicit Complication and pillar signposting — use the title craft and closing pages as exemplars, not the overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Duplicate title on p.11 and p.16 ('Focused, strategic investments to capture organic growth...') signals a structural fault — either redundancy or unclear pillar boundaries
82
closing
20250311 jpm conference presentation
“A competent investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean closing arc, but front-matter-heavy and missing explicit MECE pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.9, p.13), not for overall structure.”
↓ 27% of the deck (p.1-4) is front matter before the thesis lands — disclaimer/glossary/agenda crowd out narrative real estate
80
closing
2019 Global FS Consumer Study DACH
“Solid, disciplined analytical consulting report with a clean MECE five-finding spine and a rare, well-built closing playbook - use the recommendation slides (p25, p31, p41) as action-title exemplars, but not the persona or data sections, where titles regress to topic labels.”
↓ Persona slides (p9, p12, p15, p18) use bare noun titles instead of insights - 'Pioneers', 'Pragmatists' carry no argument by themselves.
80
closing
Accelerating net zero 2050
“A solidly-built thought-leadership report with answer-first framing and a clear call to action, but over-long openings and under-signposted middle acts keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.22-30 as a teaching example of analysis-to-recommendation flow, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Redundant openings: p.3 'executive summary' + p.4 'key findings' + p.5 'executive summary' repeat the same 93% stat three times in three pages
80
closing
Defense disrupted: New players, new pressures, new possibilities
“A competently structured Accenture thought-leadership report with a clean four-act story and a strong closing call to action - useful as a teaching example for section architecture and audience-segmented recommendations, but its delayed thesis and figure-caption titles keep it out of Storymakers-exemplar territory.”
↓ Figure captions used as page titles on p.18 and p.22 - abdicates the action-title discipline exactly where data is presented
78
closing
L.E.K.’s 2024 ASC Insights Study Key takeaways for provider organizations
“A tight, well-titled thought-leadership teaser with a clean S->C->A->R arc — use p.4-8 action titles as a teaching example for insight-first headlines, but the methodology-heavy p.2 and soft p.11/p.13 close keep it short of exemplar status.”
↓ P.2 burns the second slide on methodology/sources rather than stakes or thesis
78
closing
Risk in review Managing risk from the front line
“Solid PwC thought-leadership deck with a real S->C->A->R spine and a clear thesis, but undermined by repetitive mid-deck benchmarks and topic-label section headers - useful as a teaching example for thesis-driven evidence stacking, not for crisp MECE pillaring or memorable closes.”
↓ Several adjacent slides repeat the same Front-Liner-vs-others benchmark structure (p.12, p.13, p.16, p.18) without escalating insight
78
closing
10th Operations Efficiency Radar
“A competent annual-survey report with a clear A→B→C→D skeleton and quantified titles, but the seven-industry template repetition and 22-slide appendix tail make it a Storymakers exemplar for action-titled data slides — not for narrative compression.”
↓ Industry walk-through (p.25–45) is formulaic: each of seven industries gets the same quote→value-chain→reposition triplet, and the same canned callout 'If corporate functions spot the opportunities…' is recycled verbatim on p.27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45
78
closing
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 1 Demographic dynamics
“A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.”
↓ No tension/complication slide — jumps from context (p.5) straight to data (p.6) without naming why the reader should care now
78
closing
Generative AI: A boost for Operations
“A competent webinar deck with strong action titles and a clean close, but the four repeated agendas and question-style opener make it a useful teaching example for closing CTAs and case-study integration rather than a Storymakers exemplar of a single S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Four repeated 'Today's agenda' slides (p.3, 10, 15, 25) bloat the deck and signal a stitched-together webinar rather than a single argument
78
closing
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
78
closing
Southeast Asia’s Green Economy 2021 Report: Opportunities on the Road to Net Zero
“A solid, well-structured thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and a genuine recommendation act - use its MECE three-sector spine and branded close (p.74) as teaching examples, but flag the repetitive executive summary and topic-label framework titles as things to avoid.”
↓ Executive summary sprawls across pp.10-14 with three slides titled 'Executive summary' or 'Summary by the numbers' - repetition instead of escalation
78
closing
OUR 5 URGENT ACTS
“A well-structured two-act advocacy deck with a strong diagnosis and a quotable close — use the SCQA opening (p.3-4) and the catalyst close (p.23-24) as exemplars, but flag the prescription section as a teaching case for why action lists need pillared sub-dividers and answer-first framing.”
↓ The 5 acts (p.14) are listed but never explicitly mapped back to the 43 GT gap or the p.9 sector-lag matrix, so the recommendation feels asserted rather than derived
78
closing
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
78
closing
US consumers send mixed signals in an uncertain economy
“Tight, well-titled McKinsey insight brief with a real recommendation at the end — use the action titles and SCQA closure as a teaching example, but flag the missing pillar structure and the unflagged trade-down/splurge paradox as the gaps.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — pp.3-9 read as a topic dump rather than grouped pillars (sentiment / spending / channel)
78
closing
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