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 2 / 31
72
closing
Insurance reimagined 2025
“Competent thought-leadership white paper with a real arc and parallel recommendations, but it buries the answer and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for the imperatives section (p.18-23), not for opening craft.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Where are we now?' (p.4-6) and a duplicate 'Five trends affecting the future of insurance' (p.7 and p.13) signal recycled topic labels rather than insight titles
72
closing
Innovation in logistics: advanced pooling and robotization
“An analytically credible but structurally loose point-of-view deck — use its quantified action titles (p.12, p.16, p.19) as a teaching example, but not its overall arc, which promises a 3-pillar framework and delivers a single-pillar essay.”
↓ Middle act drift — pp.7-11 jump from Russia (p.7) to platform success factors (p.8) to a 5-cluster business-model framework (p.9) to a repeat of the '3 areas' slide (p.10) to 'Big 3 facts' (p.11), with no MECE thread
72
closing
2025 Nigeria Budget and Economic Outlook
“A diligent, metric-rich PwC market outlook with strong declarative titles and a real recommendation arc, but it buries its thesis behind 10 pages of context and lets seven identically-titled pillar dividers obscure an otherwise MECE structure — use individual analytical pages (p.10, p.18, p.86) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck-level architecture.”
↓ Seven pillar dividers are titled identically ('Key issues for consideration in 2025', p.12/21/31/39/47/58/64), erasing MECE legibility for a skim reader
72
closing
The Reinvention of Retail Banking: How focused business models can unlock value
“A competent strategy& thought-leadership pamphlet with a recognisable S-C-A-R spine and a strong recommendation triad, but the framework core and section numbering wobble enough that it works better as a teaching example for editorial titles and closing structure than as a clean Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 03 -> 05 between p.9 and p.16 with no visible 04 divider, breaking the MECE promise of the pillar structure
72
closing
Unlocking alpha in deals
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a clean SCQA arc and MECE three-pillar spine — use the divider structure and analytical action titles as a teaching example, but flag the repeated 'Call to action' titles and missing operational close as the lessons in what to fix.”
↓ Three slides (p.18, p.22, p.26) all titled 'Call to action' — a topic label repeated verbatim, the opposite of action titling
72
closing
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
72
closing
Rethinking the course to manufacturing’s future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with genuine MECE pillar discipline and a solid closing arc, but too many topic-label titles and a delayed thesis keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use its pillar structure and closing triplet as teaching material, not its opening.”
↓ Thesis is delayed: 3 front-matter slides plus 2 context slides mean the core claim isn't fully framed until p.5–7
72
closing
Elevating internal audit’s role: The digitally fitfunction 2019 State of the Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar build and disciplined 'Dynamics' protagonist framing, but soft stakes, a delayed thesis, and quote-slide padding keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and protagonist framing, not for narrative tension or BLUF openings.”
↓ Soft complication — no slide quantifies the cost of being non-Dynamic (the 81% who aren't), so stakes never sharpen
72
closing
2022 firm overview
“A confident, numbers-forward investor overview with strong action titles but a buried thesis and no MECE spine — useful as a reference for declarative, metric-anchored titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the deck takes until p.4-6 to assert leadership and until p.16 to land the ROTCE target; nothing on p.1-3 previews the answer
72
closing
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
72
closing
deutsche bank global consumer conference 2023
“A competent investor-conference deck with quantified callouts and a tidy numbered strategy section, but it reads as a structured update rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use the callout discipline as a reference, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — deck moves context → analysis → recommendation without framing the strategic problem the 8 priorities are solving
70
closing
Future-proof ad sales: The new transformation imperative
“Competent two-act transformation thesis with quantified stakes and a clear protect-now/pivot-next spine, but topic-label titles and bundled recommendations keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.11-15 as a pillar-divider teaching case, not the titling.”
↓ Figure-label titles like p.6 "FIGURE 2: Digital versus non-digital advertising spend" and p.8's 60-word run-on title waste prime real estate
70
closing
Industrial Speedsters How advanced technologies can turbocharge your speed to market
“Competent analytical-build deck with a respectable S→C→A→R skeleton and quantified action titles — useful as a mid-tier Storymakers example, but not exemplary because the thesis is buried and pillar scaffolding is absent.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.9 — the 'Speedster' payoff concept is never previewed in the opening five slides
70
closing
Women-led startups losing across the board: from creation to funding, in all key European markets
“A title-driven BCG barometer with strong action titles and a real CTA, but a muddled middle and vague closing keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - use p.1, p.3-4 and the p.10-16 run as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.17-19 re-opens context and re-frames the problem after analysis, breaking the S->C->A->R flow and feeling like two decks stitched together
70
closing
US Mail Volumes to 2020
“A classic BCG analytical build-up with excellent numeric action titles in the middle but a procedural opening and topic-labelled recommendation — use p9–p19 and p26–p33 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Procedural opening — p2–p6 are objectives/approach/segmentation with zero stakes; the 15% headline is delayed to p9
70
closing
AI Radar 2025
“Competent BCG thought-leadership deck with a strong SCQA spine and mostly insight-bearing action titles — use the rhetorical-question dividers and data-led titles as teaching examples, but flag the buried lead and soft closing as what to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 75/25 gap on p.6 should be slide 2 or 3, not page six
70
closing
AI at Work APAC
“A solid BCG survey-insight deck with strong action titles and a real tension, but it buries the complication mid-deck and ends on a topic-labeled imperatives page — use pp.5-15 as a teaching example for declarative analytical titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ The tension slide (p.11) arrives at slide 11 of 22 — the 'fear' complication should enter earlier to tension the optimism narrative built in pp.4-10.
70
closing
Mastering Marketing Measurement
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles in its benchmark half, but the narrative doubles back on itself and closes on a soft 'getting started' frame rather than a sharp recommendation - use pp.10-15 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Structural redundancy: the six steps are introduced on pp.4-8 and then re-litigated on pp.9-15 without a clear distinction between 'what leaders do' and 'why it works'
70
closing
Altagamma 2018 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A competent market-monitor deck with strong numeric action titles and a real recommendation, but the opening buries the thesis and the pillar structure is asymmetric — use its action-title discipline as a teaching example, not its overall arc.”
↓ p.44 repeats p.8's title 'LUXURY IN 2025 WILL BE A DIFFERENT PLACE' verbatim as the deck approaches closure — feels like a recycled placeholder rather than a summative insight
70
closing
Engaging Your Organization to Deliver Results
“A competent thought-leadership talk with strong declarative titles and well-placed stats, but it lacks section dividers and a prescriptive close — use its action titles and stat-anchored slides as teaching examples, not its overall skeleton.”
↓ No section dividers across 17 pages — the MECE pillars of the engagement model are implicit and the reader has to reconstruct the structure
70
closing
Building a Future-Ready Investment Firm
“A competently structured thought-leadership eBook with a genuine MECE backbone and strong case-study scaffolding, but weakened by topic-label titles and a repetitive four-slide close — use its pillar architecture as a teaching example, not its openings or closings.”
↓ 'What the experts say' is reused as a title on p.9, p.17, p.36, p.62 — a signal of lazy editorial craft for a consulting flagship
70
closing
The importance of being human in a digital world
“Research-report-style thought-leadership deck with a strong unifying metaphor and a genuine two-pillar MECE spine, but titles recycle section labels instead of carrying per-slide insights — useful as a teaching example of anchor-phrase discipline, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles collapse into section labels — five consecutive slides (p.7, 9, 10, 11, 12) all titled '03 Key research findings' with no per-slide insight, forcing the reader to mine the body for the point
70
closing
VC Human Capital Survey
“A competent longitudinal survey report with a real three-act spine and a genuine call-to-action block, but titles are topic labels and the resolution is dwarfed by the analytical middle — use pp.38-40 as a teaching example of an explicit recommendations coda, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title layer carries almost no insight — 'Gender diversity' repeated on pp.12-15, 'Racial diversity' repeated 7x on pp.16-22; the pull-quotes do the work the titles should
70
closing
Perspectives on US Healthcare Inflation Insights from L.E.K. Consulting
“A competent analytical perspective piece with strong action titles and a clean stakeholder-cut recommendation block, but missing the SCQA opening and synthesizing close that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — use p.4/p.6/p.9-11 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA setup: the deck jumps from agenda (p.2) straight to a data observation (p.3) with no stated question, stakes, or hypothesis