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
635 matching · page 10 / 27
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
02 20230302 SDD Strategy Outlook and Ambition for 2025
“A solid internal strategy-outlook deck with clean divisional MECE and a strong quantified ambition, but it buries the thesis and ends in a generic takeaways slide — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.8 — first four slides are mission/context with no hard number or stake
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
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“A solid BCG operating-model diagnostic with disciplined quantification and peer benchmarks, but it reads as a dense board-report archive rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its diagnosis→recommendation pairing within function sections as a teaching pattern, not its overall opening or closing.”
↓ The recommendation is buried: 22 pages of preamble (team bios on p.13, $5M BCG self-investment on p.8, project phases on p.6) precede the first substantive finding at p.23
52
closing
Rise of Agentic AI Report
“A well-structured research report with solid MECE pillar dividers and strong data titles, but weakened by 20+ quote/filler slides that reuse the report title as a headline and a 25-slide firm-marketing tail that buries the client imperative — use its section architecture (pp 16/22/46/60/68) as a teaching example, not its openings or its close.”
↓ Roughly 1-in-5 slides use 'Rise of agentic AI: How trust is the key to human-AI collaboration' as the headline (quote and transition pages), abdicating the action-title discipline and forcing the callout to carry the argument
52
closing
Automotive metal components for car bodies and chassis
“Competent Roland Berger market-study deck with clean MECE pillars and disciplined action titles in the analytical body - useful as a teaching example of trend-driven sizing, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it labels its executive summary, buries its punchline, and closes with firm marketing instead of a recommendation.”
↓ The most important number in the deck (EUR 15 bn hot-stamping by 2025) is buried in p.34's callout under a label title 'Implications and key takeaways' - should be the title
52
closing
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
52
closing
The State of Fashion Luxury
“A disciplined McKinsey/BoF analytical deck with strong data-bearing action titles and a clear three-act spine, but it diagnoses far better than it prescribes and closes on a single generic recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Closing recommendation (p.50) is generic and singular — the 'five strategic imperatives' teased on p.7 are never enumerated as a numbered close
52
closing
morgan stanley virtual hk summit march 2022
“A standard Macquarie investor-relations template with a clean section spine and a handful of strong declarative titles, but no SCQA arc, a buried thesis, and a 26-slide appendix tail — useful as a teaching example of IR structure and of how 'topic labels vs. action titles' diverges, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opens cover→disclaimer→agenda→divider→'at a glance', burying the 'why own us' answer
50
closing
Evaluating NYC media sector
“A competent sector-scan deliverable with strong slide-level action titles but weak narrative architecture — use the analytical slides (p.6-25) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ 10 redundant 'Agenda' slides (p.5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 31, 37) — roughly 24% of the deck is navigation chrome
50
closing
Global Assignment Policies Practices
“A competent survey-report deck with strong evidentiary density and some good action titles, but structurally a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title rewriting, not for arc design.”
↓ Opening wastes 5 slides on cover/TOC/intro/methodology before any insight — the BLUF (bottom line up front) is absent
50
closing
L.E.K. ASC Insights Study MedTech Publication Deck
“Lead-gen publication deck with unusually strong action titles and a clean analytical middle, but a hollow recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ p.16 'framework_other' poses questions instead of answering them — the deck stops one slide short of a recommendation
50
closing
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
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
Future Energy Landscape Netherlands
“A data-rich McKinsey market-outlook deck with strong quantified titles in the Netherlands section but a missing thesis up front, duplicate section dividers, and a non-committal close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and cost-curve evidence stacking, not for full SCQA structure.”
↓ Two section dividers (p.23 and p.28) carry identical text and neither names the trend it introduces — pillars are invisible to the reader
50
closing
Digital CFO Results of the Oliver Wyman Study
“A competently chaptered survey readout with above-average action titles, but it presents findings rather than telling a story — useful as a teaching example for declarative metric-led titles, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening: it takes until p.8 to surface a real finding; pp.1–7 are all setup
50
closing
Crossing the lines Fintech
“A competent analytical-comparison deck with strong data callouts but a label-heavy opening, a flabby triple 'Steps to take' middle, and a soft 'Conclusion' close — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Three identical 'Steps to take' titles (p.16, p.19, p.21) — no differentiation, no numbering, no recommendation specificity; reader cannot tell the pillars apart
50
closing
e-mobility in India
“A competent PwC point-of-view deck with quantified action titles and a coherent analytical build, but it opens slowly and resolves into a generic takeaways page — use its title-writing and callout craft as a teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — the PoV ('holistic ecosystem approach') is buried on p.9 instead of pages 1–3
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
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
50
closing
eReadiness 2023 Survey
“A well-titled, well-segmented research dump from Strategy& that demonstrates excellent action-title craft in the analytical body but buries its recommendation under 76 pages of evidence - use the consumer chapters as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Answer is buried: 5 recommendations land on p.79-80 after 76 pages of analysis, and both slides share the identical action title - the 'so what' gets ~2.5% of the page budget
50
closing
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“Textbook BCG analytical-build deck — MECE pillars, disciplined benchmarking and a hammered $70M number — but it buries the answer for 26 slides and fizzles into a victory-lap close, so use the chapter structure and exec-summary cadence as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried thesis: 26 slides before the $70M number lands — opening sells the mandate, not the answer
50
closing
EY Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but template-driven oral-proposal deck whose three-phase spine is reusable, but whose topic-label titles and missing thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'before' case for retitling exercises.”
↓ Action titles are topic labels, not insights — 'Timeline', 'Lessons learned', 'Examples of measures', 'Phase one/two/three' force the audience to read the body to learn anything
50
closing
Intelligent banking
“A solid evidence-rich KPMG thought-leadership report with a defensible Enable/Embed/Evolve framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong habits — topic-label titles, buried thesis, vendor-pitch close — so use the middle phase structure as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Action titles are largely topic labels — 'Workforce concerns' (p.25), 'Barriers to progress' (p.10), 'Key considerations' (p.31) — forcing the reader to dig into the body to find the insight