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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on closing
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “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.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “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.” — Deloitte, 2021
- “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.” — Deloitte, 2022
- “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.” — JPMorgan, 2022
- “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.” — JPMorgan, 2025
- “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.” — Accenture, 2019
- “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.” — Accenture, 2022
- “A competently structured Accenture thought-leadership report with a clean four-act story and a strong closing call to action - useful as a teaching example for section architecture and audience-segmented recommendations, but its delayed thesis and figure-caption titles keep it out of Storymakers-exemplar territory.” — Accenture, 2025
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 14 / 46
55
closing
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
55
closing
Automated Trucks The next big disruptor in the automotive industry?
“Solid analytical Roland Berger short-version with strong quantified action titles in the economics section, but it withholds the thesis up front and dribbles out the recommendation — use p.11-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No leading 'answer slide' — the core recommendation is never stated in the first 3 pages; p.2 'THE BIG 3' withholds rather than reveals
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
Rail supply digitization
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with disciplined action titles and a visible four-act spine, but it diagnoses without prescribing and ends as a Pathfinder sales pitch — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for closing a story.”
↓ Closing collapses into a product pitch: p.33-36 sell the Digital Pathfinder rather than synthesize survey takeaways into a recommendation
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
The seventh disruption to the Global Polymer Industry
“A well-crafted historical build-up that earns its thesis but stops at problem-framing — use slides 2-8 as a teaching example of inductive action titles, not the deck as a whole, since the recommendation act is missing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.11 substitutes a Roland Berger credentials pitch for a concrete answer to 'how do you win the seventh disruption?'
55
closing
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
55
closing
Sustainability Study 2024
“A competently structured short-form thought-leadership brochure with a clear two-act spine and strong data callouts, but it under-delivers on its own 'four actions' promise and closes with a capabilities pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven storytelling, not for action-title discipline or closing craft.”
↓ The 'four key actions' promised on p.12 do not appear as four parallel slides — only p.13 and p.14 are visible, so the MECE promise is broken
55
closing
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
55
closing
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
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
55
closing
Process Automation: A quickly growing market with structural tailwinds and investment opportunities
“Competent L.E.K./Harris Williams M&A market briefing with a strong opening hook and declarative analytical titles, but the resolution dissolves into a teaser rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for opening and parallel-pillar analysis, not for closing.”
↓ Ending is a teaser, not a recommendation — p21 'look for additional reports' substitutes a marketing CTA for an investor takeaway
55
closing
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
55
closing
The future trends in ASEAN steel market
“A solid analytical consulting deck with strong action titles and a clean three-pillar recommendation, but it buries the lead and fades into a generic close — useful as an exemplar for action-title writing and MECE pillars, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Buried lead — thesis arrives on p.5 after a credentials slide (p.2) and a topic-label slide (p.3 'Key trends in...')
55
closing
Towards the unified secondary market: The evolution of distribution channels and evaluation of Asset Tokenization Benefi
“A competent EY thought-leadership deck with a strong analytical middle and a quantified opening, but it ends as a service pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension-building, not for closing structure.”
↓ Four 'Content' dividers (p.6, p.10, p.12, p.18) labeled identically — wasted opportunity to name MECE pillars
55
closing
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
55
closing
The generative AI advantage in financial services
“A serviceable thought-leadership PDF with one strong action title and disciplined callouts, but structurally a topic-dump that buries its thesis and ends in a vendor pitch — useful as a teaching example of weak openings and noun-titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening is dead weight — p.1 cover + p.2 generic 'Introduction' burn two of the deck's ten pages without establishing stakes or thesis
55
closing
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
55
closing
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry-research report with answer-first openings and quantified action titles on the analytics, but the recommendations and close are weak — use slides 7, 8, and 12 as Storymakers exemplars of declarative titling, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.14, p.15) carry the section-divider label as their action title, hiding the actual insight
55
closing
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
55
closing
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
55
closing
Aerospace supply chain: Resilience report 2024
“A disciplined survey-report deck with strong action titles and tight pacing, but the recommendation is under-built and the structure is a flat analytical run rather than a true Storymakers arc — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing or pillar design.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.13) with a generic 'adopt best-practices' message — no specific moves, owners, or sequencing
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
The age of Generative AI: Unveiling the next frontier of digital procurement
“A solid McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong individual titles and a clean two-pillar back half, but a context-heavy opening and a soft 'Closing note' close make it a useful teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening (pp.1–5) is pure context with no thesis — reader must wait 5+ slides for the point