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 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
44 matching · page 1 / 2
76
closing
Next Generation Manufacturing Tech Innovation
“Textbook BCG diagnostic-to-prescription build with strong action titles and a dual-audience CTA, but buries the thesis behind six slides of front matter — use the country-case section (pp.20-28) and the split-audience recommendation block (pp.55-58) as teaching exemplars, not the opening.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 5 slides, and the entire executive summary is compressed into a single slide (p.7) labelled 'At a Glance' — a topic label, not an insight
74
closing
Altagamma 2017 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A polished Bain market-monitor with strong insight-bearing action titles and named thematic pillars, but under-tensioned and under-actioned — use pages 9-18 and 41 as teaching examples of quantified headlines and on-a-page synthesis, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Weak complication: no slide frames the 'so what / what's at risk' — the deck jumps from context straight to analysis without a tension beat
72
closing
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A solid diagnostic survey deck with strong action-titled middle analysis but a hedged opening and a one-slide recommendation — use p.8-16 as a teaching example of insight titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: p.4-5 'Executive summary' callouts are hedged and don't state the one-line answer; no BLUF in first 3 slides
72
closing
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
70
closing
What if Germany becomes the sick man of Europe again?
“A textbook Roland Berger thought-leadership deck with excellent action titles and a clean SCQA arc — use the title craft and stakes-first opening as exemplars, but flag the missing MECE dividers and the under-developed recommendation as the parts a Storymakers reader should not copy.”
↓ No section dividers — the cyclical/structural/cost/digital pillars aren't labeled, so MECE structure is implicit only
70
closing
KPMG global AI in finance report
“A competent thought-leadership research report with a clean four-pillar spine and good metric discipline, but it reads as an analytical survey rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as an example of section architecture and metric-anchored slides, not of action-title craft or SCQA opening.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never frames a complication or burning question before diving into framework (p.5) and benefits (p.8)
70
closing
1Q24 GTM update 3.01.24 Jackson
“A polished JPM market-outlook chartbook with exemplary action-title writing and a clean macro-to-recommendation arc, but missing MECE dividers and a real call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure — 18 consecutive 'analyze_data' slides risk reading as a chartbook dump
66
closing
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
65
closing
Reinventing for resilience
“A solid analytical Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong action titles on its data pages and proprietary IP, but the SCQA arc is bottom-heavy: use the data slides (p7, p11, p14, p17) as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slide 18 is a verbatim duplicate of slide 17's headline — a wasted page that signals weak editorial discipline
65
closing
The “new” rules of engagement
“A solid survey-report deck with strong action titles and a readable tension-release arc, but it leads with context rather than the answer and under-delivers on the close — use p.7-12 as a teaching example of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.4 and p.5 are near-duplicate 'key message' slides up front — redundancy dilutes the opening
65
closing
The State of Luxury January 2025
“A competent McKinsey state-of-industry deck with strong insight-led titles in the analytical core but a generic opening and a thin recommendation tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts, not for narrative architecture or a punchy close.”
↓ No executive-summary / BLUF slide in the first three pages — the thesis has to be reconstructed from p.4 onward
65
closing
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
62
closing
AI Raising Stakes Cybersecurity
“Solid BCG research slideshow with a clean S→C→A→R spine and strong declarative titles, but the recommendation is compressed into one slide — use it as a teaching example for action titles and opening stakes, not for resolution design.”
↓ Resolution is undersized — a single p.20 priorities slide has to carry the entire «what to do» after 10 diagnostic slides
62
closing
Digital Auto Report 2023
“A well-titled, MECE-structured analytical report with strong action titles in the data section, but it front-loads 16 slides of consumer evidence and compresses the strategic answer into a single recommendation slide — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar dividers, not for narrative arc.”
↓ p.5-20 is 16 consecutive analyze_data slides with no internal section divider — feels like a research dump preceding the strategic story
60
closing
Going full circle
“A competent research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a coherent diagnostic spine, but the thin opening and single-slide resolution make it a good teaching example for title craft and tension-building, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Opening is methodology-heavy: p.3 'Sample size by country' belongs in an appendix, not slide 3 of a 15-page argument.
60
closing
FinTechs in Europe – Challenger and Partner
“A well-structured Roland Berger survey deck with a thesis-first opening and disciplined action titles, but back-loaded recommendations make it a strong exemplar for analytical build-up and pillar structure rather than for resolution.”
↓ Resolution is thin: only p.34-35 carry the 'fields of action' — a single recommendation slide for 30 slides of build-up
58
closing
Work, workforce, workers Reinvented in the age of generative AI
“A solid thought-leadership report with a genuine SCQA backbone and a MECE four-accelerator resolution, but it reads more like a polished briefing than a Storymakers exemplar - use its section architecture as a teaching case, not its action titles or its missing close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on an inspirational quote (p.42) then drops straight into appendices
55
closing
New Brunswick Supply Chain Study
“Thorough, analytically-rigorous public-sector supply-chain study with a competent opening thesis and disciplined scenario analysis — but titles default to topic labels and the recommendation is crushed into one slide after 23 pages of diagnosis; use it as a teaching example for demand modeling and vendor mapping structure, not for Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels — e.g. p.6 'Key Findings', p.28 'Vendor categorization', p.56 'Risk mitigation plan' — wasting the title real-estate that Storymakers treats as the primary message channel
55
closing
Inclusion and Diversity Survey Make It More Than A Mantra
“Solid analytical survey deck with disciplined action titles in the middle but a thin resolution - useful as a teaching example for cornerstone-framework reuse and section chaptering, not for closing the loop from stakes to recommendation.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.30) with a generic title and no enumerated levers, despite p.29 promising '4 key opportunities for differentiation'.
55
closing
Customers in spotlight FinTech banking
“A competent industry-trends brief with a strong opening hook and credible data, but the recommendation act is a single slide — useful as an example of leading with the answer, weaker as a model of MECE pillars or a built-out resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act is one slide deep (p.9) — the 'win-win partnership' thesis on p.8 deserves its own build of how/who/when, not a single conclusion paragraph
55
closing
CEO Panel Survey Emerge Stronger
“A competent survey-readout deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation slide, but the placeholder titles and thin close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.3/p.4/p.7 as title-writing teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Four slides (p.5, 6, 10, 12) carry the placeholder title 'CEO Panel Survey | n' — wasted real estate where an action title should live
55
closing
Barriers to FinTech innovation in the Netherlands
“Competent Roland Berger policy deck with clear three-act scaffolding and mostly declarative titles, but it under-builds the tension and fades into appendix instead of landing a call to action — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing structure.”
↓ No synthesis or call-to-action slide before the appendix — the deck ends mid-thought at p.31 and dumps 10 supporting slides
55
closing
Roland Berger Construction Radar – Impacts on DACH region
“Tight, answer-first scenario-planning deck with strong analytical spine but a thin recommendation tail — use p.2 and p.5-9 as Storymakers exemplars for executive summaries and quantified action titles, not for the closing arc.”
↓ Recommendation compressed into a single slide (p.11) with a generic callout — disproportionate to the 4-slide analytical build-up
55
closing
Lloyd’s and Bermuda
“A competent analytical talk-deck with a strong middle (quantified action titles, well-built reserving and rate-hardening story) but a definitional opening and a hand-wave ending — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analysis slides, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no thesis or stakes — reader doesn't know the question being answered until ~p.11