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
737 matching · page 19 / 31
32
closing
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
32
closing
Our Impact Plan 2023
“A well-structured ESG/impact report with exemplary MECE pillar architecture but weak action titles and no call to action — use the section-divider structure as a teaching example, not the title craft or the closing.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (p.13 'Purposeful business', p.25 'Human rights', p.51 'Decarbonization', p.59 'Climate risk') — the action-title discipline is largely absent
32
closing
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
32
closing
Impact of the US BIOSECURE Act on Biopharmas, Contract Services and Investors
“A competent, quant-anchored survey readout with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it sells its own findings short by ending in a capabilities pitch instead of a recommendation - use slides 7-8 as examples of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a capabilities slide (p.11) and a sales CTA (p.12) instead of a recommendation for biopharmas, CxOs or investors
32
closing
European Consumer Sentiment Survey: How current events in Europe are shaping consumer behavior
“A textbook McKinsey consumer-research deck with a strong opening and disciplined three-pillar MECE spine, but it stops at analysis — use it as an exemplar for action titles and pillar structure, not for the full Storymakers S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on data slides (p38–p39 splurge intent) and a blank McKinsey logo (p40), with no 'implications for retailers/brands' or call to action
32
closing
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
32
closing
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
32
closing
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“Solid McKinsey-grade primer/landscape deck with strong numbers and case examples, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong lesson - use individual slides (p.31, p.35, p.27) to teach quantified action titles and case framing, not the overall structure, which lacks Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No 'so what': there is no recommendation slide, no call to action, no decision the audience is being asked to make - the deck stops, it doesn't conclude
32
closing
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
32
closing
IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT 2025
“A research report dressed as a deck -- exemplary executive-summary craft in p.5-9, but the body is an atlas of survey tables and the close evaporates into methodology, so use the opening as a teaching example and the body as a counter-example.”
↓ Body slides p.11-49 are repetitive topic-titled data tables ('...by Country' / '...by Generation') with no action titles surfacing the insight
32
closing
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
32
closing
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
32
closing
Pulse of Fintech H1’21
“A solid MECE market-intelligence report with disciplined numeric section dividers and several genuinely declarative action titles, but no SCQA arc and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for region/segment structure and insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative or close.”
↓ Repeated topic-label titles inside the analytical sections ('Global insights' pp.7/8/9/14; 'Fintech segments — Payments' pp.17/18; 'Regional insights — Americas' pp.35/36) waste page real-estate that should carry the chart's takeaway
32
closing
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
32
closing
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A well-organised, MECE sector outlook with solid action titles on body slides but no opening hook and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and pillar consistency, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Nine 'Key Takeaways' slides reuse the same non-insight title instead of stating the takeaway in the headline
32
closing
2023 MS Conference Presentation
“A solid lead-with-the-answer investor deck for the first 11 slides that then dissolves into a 19-slide reference appendix — useful as a teaching example for thesis-first openings and peer-benchmark titling, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 60% of the deck (p.12-30) is appendix; the narrative effectively ends at p.11 with no recommendation or call-to-action slide
32
closing
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2024
“A disciplined creditor/IR information pack with strong answer-first framing and good action titles in the performance section, but it dumps into footnotes with no resolution and loses title discipline in the risk chapter — usable as a pillar-structure exemplar, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.25 Sustainability and falls straight into footnotes/disclaimers (p.26–29)
30
closing
A&M Valuation Insights November 2023
“A competent quarterly valuation update with strong slide-level action titles but no overarching story — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and metric-anchored callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or 'answer first' slide — the thesis of the report is never stated up front
30
closing
A&M Valuation Insights – German vs. European Banks
“Tight, well-titled analytical brief with strong headline+driver titles but no thesis opener or recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full S→C→A→R narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.5 is labeled key_takeaways but reads as another data slide, and p.6 jumps straight to contacts
30
closing
BCG Investor Perspectives Series
“Solid BCG research pulse-check with strong declarative titles in the analytical middle (p.7–17) but a topic-label executive summary and an appendix-dump close — use the middle 10 slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the deck as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends with a 7-page table appendix (p.19–25) and a contact page (p.26), so the executive reader gets data without a 'what to do Monday morning'
30
closing
The Evolving State of Digital Transformation
“A well-crafted survey-findings brief with exemplary stat-led action titles, but structurally an analytical walk with no complication and no recommendation — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a narrative model.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — deck ends on p.16 describing COVID priorities, then a disclaimer, leaving the reader without a "now what"
30
closing
How Can US Brands Reach Gen Z
“A well-titled but structurally incomplete insights handout — great teaching example for declarative action titles, poor exemplar for Storymakers narrative arc or MECE pillars.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck asks 'what do brands need to know?' on p.2 but never answers 'therefore, do X'
30
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Thailand
“A competent market-intelligence chapter with strong insight-titling but no SCQA arc and no recommendation — use slides 3, 5, and 6 as a teaching example of quantified action titles, not the deck structure.”
↓ No complication or recommendation — the deck is S → A with no C or R, so it reads as a briefing not a story
30
closing
Capgemini Group Presentation 2025
“Corporate introduction brochure with a decent three-pillar spine but no SCQA arc and a bloated appendix — useful as a teaching case of how MECE pillars can coexist with weak action-titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or problem framing anywhere in the first 10 pages — the deck asserts identity rather than arguing a point