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 12 / 27
48
closing
Global Pricing Sales Study 2017
“Sharp analytical teaser with a strong stat-led opening and clean S-C-A-R skeleton, but the recommendation is deliberately withheld and the close is a lead-gen CTA — useful as a teaching example for action titles and complication framing, not for resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act (p.9) is marked sparse — the answer to 'how to avoid the Big Digital Fail' is structurally promised but not delivered in the inventoried content
48
closing
The net-zero transition
“A solid McKinsey-style analytical build with disciplined number-led titles and a clear thesis, but the recommendation is hedged and the close defaults to a download CTA — use the analytical middle (p.8–13) as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide (p.17) is a research-download URL, wasting the most memorable real estate in the deck
48
closing
Fintech
“A competent analytical Deloitte industry report with strong action titles on the diagnostic slides but a missing 'Answer' act — use pages 9-11 as a teaching example of tension-carrying titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the cover tagline 'On the brink of further disruption' is never restated as a crisp SCQA answer
48
closing
Trends & AI in the Contact Center
“A competent survey-plus-capabilities deck with strong data callouts but a weak story spine — use its quantified pull-quotes as a teaching example, not its structure or titles.”
↓ Six near-identical section dividers (pp.2,4,6,8,10,12) eat ~20% of the deck without differentiating pillars — dividers should be MECE, not refrains
48
closing
20210628 Lanxess Presentation MS Cannon Ball Run Field Trip
“A solid IR earnings update with above-average action titles and a credible analytical spine, but the unlabeled dividers and absent recommendation make it a useful teaching example for segment-level action-titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles out via events calendar (p.31) and contacts (p.32)
48
closing
us executive macroeconomic briefing february 20240223
“A strong analytical macro briefing with thesis-led opening and genuinely insight-bearing action titles, undermined by a platitude recommendation, an orphan slide near the close, and missing pillar structure — use the title craft and opening as a Storymakers exemplar, but not the resolution.”
↓ Resolution is generic: p.23 'transform uncertainty into opportunity' is a consultancy cliché rather than a recommendation derived from the prior 20 slides of analysis
48
closing
Consolidated Full Presentation
“A disciplined investor-day portfolio update with strong action-title and callout craft within each LOB, but no firm-wide story arc — use individual sections (especially the CCB Banking and CIB Markets builds) as teaching examples for slide-level Storymakers discipline, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No firm-wide narrative spine: the macro tension on p.7 and p.16 never resolves into a 'so therefore' for the whole firm — it dissolves into five parallel LOB stories
48
closing
2019 ccb investor day ba56d0e8
“A textbook investor-day deck with consultant-grade action titles and clean MECE business-line pillars, but reassurance-mode narrative and a generic closing — use the Home Lending section (pp.21-30) as the SCQA exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Closing slide p.48 ('We remain focused on executing against our strategy') is generic — no concrete asks, financial commitments, or 2020 milestones
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
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition
“A solid analytical report with strong middle-act action titles, but it ends on a framework instead of a recommendation and hides its thesis behind scene-setting — use its analytical slides (p.8, p.22-25) as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ Resolution act is a framework, not a recommendation — p.32-33 tell brands to 'decide which role to play' without naming which roles or priorities
45
closing
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
45
closing
Altagamma 2019 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A well-structured annual market monitor with strong action-title discipline and a memorable mnemonic pillar framework — useful as a teaching example for action titles and section spines, but not for closing the loop, since it ends on description rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the analytical build peaks at p.44 abstraction then dissolves into back matter (pp.45-49)
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
IBV Global Business Services Cover
“A concept-led IBM thought-leadership piece with a clear thesis but weak editorial discipline on titles and no sharp call to action — useful as a teaching example of framework reveal (p.8, p.10), not of Storymakers action-titling or closing craft.”
↓ The phrase 'The Individual Enterprise' is reused as a title on p.1, p.4, p.6, p.8, and p.18 — the deck leans on the brand phrase instead of differentiating each slide's insight
45
closing
Familiar challenges new approaches
“A competent survey report with a clean three-pillar spine but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for chapter dividers and quote-slide pacing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Many data slides ship the raw 'Exhibit N: <question text>' as the title (p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.24, p.30) — the chart caption is doing the work an action title should
45
closing
A future that works: AI, Automation, employment, and productivity
“A keynote-style thought-leadership deck with strong analytical chapter (p.13-18) but a missing Resolution act — use the middle as a Storymakers exemplar of action-titled analysis, not as a model for narrative close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closing slide p.22 'some real challenges to address' re-states the problem instead of resolving it
45
closing
Brazil Digital Report
“A solid analytical landscape report with disciplined section structure and several strong declarative titles, but it reads as a research summary rather than a Storymakers deck — use the talent section's titling as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends on 'In summary:' (p.42) and a thank-you (p.43), violating the SCQA 'Resolution' act
45
closing
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them
45
closing
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription
45
closing
Medical Affairs Japan
“A solid analytical-pillar deck with a clear thesis and MECE spine, but it ends without a recommendation - use pp.6-10 as a teaching example for SCQA setup and Yet-pivots, not for how to close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide near the end; p.20 merely restates the opening thesis
45
closing
Secret of Transformations
“A solid McKinsey teaching/keynote deck with strong quantified evidence and a recognizable arc, but the interrogative titles, mid-deck survey detour, and missing recommendation make it a useful exemplar for analytical build-up — not for Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Survey for the audience' slides (p.8-13) interrupt the narrative and look like a workshop artifact, not a deck
45
closing
the true value of green: willingness to pay for sustainability in consumer & home electronics
“Solid analytical mid-section with declarative titles and a clear conjoint backbone, but the deck buries its recommendation in a single 'Key takeaways' label - use slides 5-10 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is a single label slide ('Key takeaways', p.13) with no recommendation, action, or next step for the audience
45
closing
Re-Imagine the Possible 2018/2019
“A topic-organized budget walkthrough with strong numerical content but weak narrative scaffolding — useful as a teaching example of how MECE pillars and quantitative anchors are necessary but not sufficient without action titles and an explicit thesis.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is cover/agenda/divider/divider/framework with no stated point of view
45
closing
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing