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 17 / 27
35
closing
Education: 2021 Deal Round-up and Trends to Watch Out For in 2022
“A competent analytical data round-up with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it is a briefing not a story — missing thesis, missing synthesis, and ending on a contact card instead of a recommendation; use slides 2, 4, 10, 13 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.15 data + p.16 'Connect with us' — there is no recommendation, no 'what to watch in 2022' payoff despite the title promising it
35
closing
Education: 2022 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2023
“Solid analytical mid-section with disciplined action titles, but it is structured as a market-update report rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for data-slide titling, not for arc design or closes.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the deck buries its forward-looking thesis behind 12 slides of 2022 retrospection
35
closing
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“A competent McKinsey outlook with strong analytical titles per vector but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do' act — deck ends on the emissions gap (p.26) then jumps to 'Get in touch' (p.27)
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
35
closing
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
35
closing
Quantum Technology Monitor 2021
“A solid, data-dense market monitor with disciplined action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a reference document not a story — use its individual analytical slides as title-writing exemplars, but not its overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening and no recommendation close — p.2 asks 'What is this document for?' and the deck ends on methodology (pp.41-44) with no 'so what / now what' slide
35
closing
Quantum Technology Monitor 2022
“A well-titled, data-rich industry monitor with strong slide-level discipline but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-titling and callout craft, not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — p.2 'What does this document provide?' is a meta-description, not a stake
35
closing
Responding to Covid-19 (2021)
“A competent COVID-19 reference almanac with strong action titles and clear callouts, but it lacks an SCQA frame and ends in a marketing CTA — useful as a teaching example for action-title and callout craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA setup in the opening: p.1-3 are cover/intro/TOC and p.6 is a generic 'summary facts' page rather than a thesis
35
closing
Namibia Budget on plate 2019-20
“A topic-organised PwC budget walkthrough with strong data and decent callouts but no thesis, no MECE pillars, and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No lead-with-the-answer slide in positions 1-3; the deck never tells you what PwC concludes about the 2019/2020 budget
35
closing
Dissecting 2021-22 Budget Speech
“Comprehensive but headline-free budget recap — useful as a teaching example of how topic-titled, sparse-callout decks fail the Storymakers test, not as an exemplar of narrative or action-title craft.”
↓ Titles are uniformly topic labels — '2021/22 Annual Budget Speech: <X>' — leaving the reader to derive the insight (p.4-20)
35
closing
GEM Outlook 2023-2027 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC outlook report with above-average action-title craft in the segment sections, but it reads as an analytical inventory rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides 9, 13, 17, 20 as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 02 → 04 (no section 03), signalling either lost content or a sloppy bolt-on of the GenAI module
35
closing
Bike Sharing 5.0
“Solid analytical industry study with metric-rich declarative titles, but it is a Roland Berger 'overview' rather than a Storymakers argument - useful as an example of clean data titling, not as a model for opening hooks, MECE pillars, or recommendation closes.”
↓ p.2 'executive summary' restates the deck's purpose ('this study provides a comprehensive overview') instead of leading with the answer - a Storymakers cardinal sin
35
closing
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
35
closing
Sustainability Study 2019
“Solid analytical mini-study with strong numerate action titles, but it is a research-findings deck dressed as a pitch — use pp.6–11 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc, which buries the recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/so-what slide — deck ends on firm credentials (p.13) and 'Thank you!' (p.14), throwing away the analytical build-up
35
closing
6th ICO STO Report Strategic
“A competent short market-study deck with above-average action titles, but it ends on a credentials pitch instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of strong data-slide titling, weak as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ Closes on a service pitch (p.11) + 'Thank you!' (p.12) with no synthesized recommendation or 'so what' for the reader
35
closing
Insurance Trends and Growth Opportunities for Poland (2015)
“Solid analytical setup and several insight-bearing titles, but the deck is a trend tour that never resolves into a recommendation - useful as a teaching example for S->C framing on p.3-4, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution: 'Topics for the debate' (p.24) abdicates the recommendation a consulting deck owes its audience
35
closing
IPSOS SEA AHEAD SHIFTS & SENTIMENTS
“A solid sentiment-research dossier with several Storymakers-grade action titles in its first pillar, but it ends on a broken promise (empty NetZero roadmap → Q&A → tagline) and never synthesizes its three pillars into a recommendation — use pp.6-18 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No closing recommendation — p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' divider is followed only by Q&A (p.34) and a brand tagline (p.35); the roadmap itself is missing
35
closing
2023 EU Wide EBA Stress Test Our First Glance at Results
“A competent analyst briefing with a strong BLUF opening and one memorable thesis ('P2G drives winners and losers'), but it buries action titles in callouts and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example for opening slides and benchmarking, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides (p.6–12) reuse '1. EBA Stress Test Impacts' as the on-slide title — the action-title work has been pushed into the callout layer, defeating skim-readability
35
closing
ROAD TO RESILIENCE
“A competently structured annual survey readout with rich data in the callouts but topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how to convert callouts into action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five consecutive slides titled 'INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHTS' (pp.12-16) signal a topic dump, not a MECE pillar; each should carry its sector name and an action verdict
35
closing
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competently-titled industry barometer with one excellent thematic mini-arc (China/SEA, p.20–24) but no SCQA resolution — use individual action titles like p.20 as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Outlook (p.25–26) is a single content slide with a topic-label title — the natural 'answer' moment of the deck is empty
35
closing
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
35
closing
Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional
“A well-opened, well-quantified problem statement that abdicates its own conclusion — use slides 1-7 as a teaching example for stakes-setting and action titles, but not as a complete Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.10 asks 'What will it take to improve productivity?' but the deck ends without answering
35
closing
Review of 2024 capital markets performance
“A competent McKinsey market-review chartbook with strong action titles and a clever median-vs-mean build, but it lacks a resolution act and a real exec summary — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at p.13 with a trend observation rather than a recommendation or 'implications for executives' close
35
closing
Global Assignment Policies and Practices Survey
“A competent KPMG survey readout with dense data and occasional action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case of analytical-dump structure with a marketing-CTA close — useful to teach what to fix, not to imitate.”
↓ No SCQA arc — slides 6 onward are a sequential survey readout rather than a problem→analysis→answer narrative