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
35 matching · page 1 / 2
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
74
closing
Facts, scenarios, and actions for leaders Publication #3 with a focus on Emerging Stronger from the Crisis
“A competent crisis-era BCG update with a clear framework spine and explicit recommendations, but the duplicated section dividers and topic-label transitions make it a decent analytical-build example rather than an exemplary Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Duplicate section divider titles on p.15 and p.30 ('COVID-19 Context and Development') collapse the MECE structure
72
closing
2025 Nigeria Budget and Economic Outlook
“A diligent, metric-rich PwC market outlook with strong declarative titles and a real recommendation arc, but it buries its thesis behind 10 pages of context and lets seven identically-titled pillar dividers obscure an otherwise MECE structure — use individual analytical pages (p.10, p.18, p.86) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck-level architecture.”
↓ Seven pillar dividers are titled identically ('Key issues for consideration in 2025', p.12/21/31/39/47/58/64), erasing MECE legibility for a skim reader
72
closing
Unlocking alpha in deals
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a clean SCQA arc and MECE three-pillar spine — use the divider structure and analytical action titles as a teaching example, but flag the repeated 'Call to action' titles and missing operational close as the lessons in what to fix.”
↓ Three slides (p.18, p.22, p.26) all titled 'Call to action' — a topic label repeated verbatim, the opposite of action titling
62
closing
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
55
closing
End of management as we know it
“Well-scaffolded problem-diagnosis deck with strong action titles and MECE dividers, but the 'answer' act is thin and there's no explicit recommendation — use the opening and divider chain as a Storymakers teaching example, not the resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p.28 is an illustrative observation, not a call to action
55
closing
Blueprint for Advancing Metabolic Health
“Solid McKinsey white paper with a clean SCQA spine and one exemplary action-title slide (p.7), but the recommendation is buried and the deck trails off into quotes - useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Closing collapses: p.17 'Time to put it all together' is the recommendation slide but its title is generic and there is no explicit ask, owner, or next step.
55
closing
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2024 Presentation
“Textbook investor-earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified scorecard, but analytical and segment sections revert to topic labels and it tails off into a 29-page appendix — use slides 2 and 6-8 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Segment section (p.20-24) titled by entity ('Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank', 'Asset Management') instead of by insight — reader must parse callouts to learn which divisions are actually driving the thesis
55
closing
id19 growth in wealth management
“A competent investor-day update with strong quantified middle-section analytics but a stapled three-division structure, generic dividers and summaries, and no opening thesis or closing ask — useful as a teaching example of good action-title writing in the analytical core, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — slides 1–4 are cover, disclaimer, divider, and bullet highlights; the audience never gets a single-slide answer up front
52
closing
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
50
closing
AI Healthcare Errors
“A well-evidenced analytical case-study tour with strong mid-deck action titles, but it lacks the SCQA opener and synthesis closer needed to work as a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 9, 15 and 16 for teaching declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the title promises 'preventing healthcare errors' but no slide in pp.1–8 sizes the error problem or names the Question
50
closing
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
50
closing
TRREB Ipsos year in review and outlook 2021
“A competent industry research read-out with a few strong action titles and a memorable economic-impact close, but the topic-label titles and generic section dividers make it an analytical-dump rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for what happens when a deck reports data without arguing a point.”
↓ All three section dividers reuse the same deck title instead of naming the pillar (Buyers, Sellers, Investors), so MECE structure is invisible
45
closing
The CEO’s Roadmap on Generative AI
“A well-structured three-pillar BCG executive perspective with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it opens slowly and ends in a checklist rather than a recommendation — use pp.5, 14, 15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Resolution is thin — p.31 'companies can adopt the following policies today' is a generic checklist, and p.32 is a team-bio slide; there is no synthesis slide restating the pillar-level recommendations
45
closing
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
45
closing
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“A solid analytical macroeconomic outlook with strong action titles in the diagnosis section, but it reads as a research briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative - useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for arc design or closing.”
↓ No BLUF or thesis slide in the opening - reader must infer the deck's question from the dashboard on p.3
45
closing
BCG's Guide to Cost and Growth
“A competently argued thought-leadership deck with disciplined numeric action titles and a visible three-act spine, but it buries its recommendation behind a capabilities pitch — use p.3-9 and p.12-16 as a teaching example of statistic-led titling, not the overall close.”
↓ Closing collapses into capability-marketing: p.22 'BCG has deep expertise in cost management' replaces the recommendation slide the arc was building toward
42
closing
2018 True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight
“A textbook analytical build with strong data-led action titles, but it skips the Resolution act - use p14-p28 as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not as a model for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No synthesis/recommendation slide - deck ends on 'ready?' (p51), 'Thank you' (p52), and a BD pitch (p53); the reader never gets the 'so what, do this'
42
closing
SDG Guide for Business Leaders
“A competent McKinsey playbook with a strong three-pillar spine and mostly declarative titles, but it opens with two TOCs and ends with templates instead of a recommendation - use the INSPIRE/ENGAGE/IMPACT structure as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Two tables of contents back-to-back (pp.2 and 4) signal weak editorial discipline before the deck even begins
42
closing
Gartner Introduction 2025
“A well-crafted investor introduction with a strong opening thesis and several exemplary quantified action titles, but structurally a company tour - use individual slides (pp. 3, 17, 29, 35) as Storymakers title-writing exemplars, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Repeated identical divider title 'Gartner: Who We Are' across six slides destroys MECE signaling
42
closing
Fearon DBConference 2019
“A competent investor/IR deck with strong action-title discipline and a real arc, but it buries the thesis 20 slides in and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example of action-title writing and slide-chaining, not of Storymakers opening/closing craft.”
↓ Thesis deferred ~20 pages — p.21 'Eaton is well positioned to take advantage of these growth trends' should be near the front, not two-thirds in
40
closing
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.
35
closing
GenAI retail commercial banking
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative action titles in its analytical middle, but it reads as a research dump rather than an argument — use pp.8-18 as a teaching example for metric-anchored titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do about it' slide — the deck ends at p.22 with a use-case list and never resolves the S→C→A→R arc
35
closing
Responding to COVID-19: Addressing the economic impact of the crisis
“A solid analytical-diagnostic deck with a memorable 4R framework, but the recommendation half hedges and the closing evaporates — use the diagnosis section (p.6-10) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Closing collapses to a one-word 'Conclusion' (p.32) with no prioritized recommendation or next-step ask — fatal for a leader-facing deck