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
35 matching · page 2 / 2
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
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
30
closing
Private company outlook: Productivity
“A competent but inert survey-findings report with above-average action titles and a strong opening stat — use it as a teaching example of declarative titling, not of narrative arc, because it has no Resolution act and ends on boilerplate.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — p.12 is just another finding, then p.13 is boilerplate
30
closing
Technology Mineral Criticality
“A solid analytical McKinsey deck with strong action titles and a clear opening problem-frame, but it loses the storyline halfway through and never delivers a closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for title quality and S-C-A framing, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on scenario analysis (p. 26) then 'Back-up' (p. 27)
30
closing
Sportech 2021 Paris, February 2022
“A competent analytical scan of French sportech with strong metric-laden titles and good callouts, but no thesis, no resolution, and overlapping pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: pages 1-4 are cover/agenda/divider/context — the deck never states what question it answers or why the reader should care
30
closing
What if all vehicles were electric?
“Solid analytical point-of-view with quantified titles but a missing resolution act — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on rate-limiters (p.9) with no recommendation, implication, or answer to the cover question
30
closing
IMD Morgan Stanley Final 13 June 2019
“Competent regional-bank investor deck with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it never states a Complication and ends in disclaimers — useful as an exemplar of pillar architecture and peer-benchmark evidence, not as a full SCQA narrative or strong close.”
↓ No Complication: deck shows strengths without naming a tension or risk, so there is nothing for the recommendation to resolve
28
closing
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
28
closing
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
22
closing
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
20
closing
ey digital survey shaping the new normal
“A competent, well-titled regional-survey topic dump with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not of story structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation — deck ends on a data slide (p41) and a 'Contact us' (p42), with zero 'so what' for the reader