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
726 matching · page 1 / 31
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
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
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
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
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
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
78
closing
20240220 Barclays US Consumer Bank Investor Update
“A competent investor-update deck with a clean three-pillar resolution and solid analytical titles, but it buries the thesis in the opening and lacks an explicit tension act — use p.11-15 as a MECE-pillar teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.2-4 set context but the 2026 RoTE promise only appears on p.7
78
closing
Client Creditor Overview Q4 2023
“A disciplined investor-relations deck with a clean two-act arc and metric-laden action titles — a good exemplar of answer-led analytical writing, but weak on Complication and pillar scaffolding, so use it to teach title craft and quantitative spine rather than full SCQA narrative design.”
↓ Weak 'Complication' act — p.13 'Adapting to a world in transition' is the only tension slide and it's abstract ('Ready to seize opportunities') rather than naming specific pressures
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
75
closing
AI at Work: What People Are Saying
“A well-executed survey-findings deck with mostly strong action titles and a correctly placed recommendation slide, but it reads as an ordered sequence of findings rather than a Storymakers-style argument - useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a structural one.”
↓ No section dividers; 8 consecutive analyze_data slides (pp.4-11) flow without pillar signposting
75
closing
Mining Investment Fragile Conflict
“Compact 8-page executive brief with a coherent S→C→A→R spine and strong numeric titles, but it asks questions instead of leading with the answer and ends on a metaphor rather than a decision — useful as a short-form arc example, not as an opening or closing exemplar.”
↓ P.2 'Central questions' delays the thesis — opening should lead with the answer, not the questions
75
closing
Lebanon Economic Vision
“A textbook McKinsey government strategy report with a genuinely strong SCQA diagnosis chapter, but the 1,274-page length, procedural opening, and topic-label-heavy sector dives bury the storyline — use the first 22 slides as a teaching example of analytical build-up, and the rest as a cautionary tale on appendix-as-deck.”
↓ The 1,274-page total length is itself the biggest narrative failure — the story ends at p.149 and the remaining ~1,100 pages of appendix-as-deck dilute every editorial choice that came before
75
closing
Understanding the path to digital marketing maturity
“Solid mid-tier exemplar of a research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a complete arc, but buries its sharpest insight on p.7 — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, less so for opening-hook craft.”
↓ Lead is buried: the punchy '2% are mature' insight sits on p.7 instead of p.2 or p.3 where it would set the tension