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 23 / 46
42
closing
CO2 Emissions Report
“A solid analytical benchmark report with a strong opening thesis and quantified stakes, undermined by a near-total absence of slide-level action titles and a flat 'Get in touch' close — useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline and OEM-benchmark structure, but a cautionary case for title craft.”
↓ Title repetition: ~75% of slides recycle the report tagline as the action title, forcing insight into callouts and breaking the Storymakers principle of 'read the titles, get the story'
42
closing
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
42
closing
Navigating payments matrix
“A well-researched thematic walkthrough of payments trends with a genuinely useful 4 Rs framework, but it reads more like a magazine feature than a tight Storymakers argument — use the framework slides (p.21-23) as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.24-28) drift into regional trends and quotes with no call-to-action — the deck fizzles
42
closing
New US tax/tariff proposals and their impact on the US automotive industry
“An analytically rigorous, answer-first Roland Berger argument with excellent declarative titles and a clean S→C→A pillar structure, but it stops at impact and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified build-up, not for how to close a deck.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck stops at p32's impact number with no recommendation, mitigation play, or stance on what OEMs/policymakers should do next
42
closing
Project Spiritus Final report Market Study
“Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — closing growth-opportunities slide (p.92) is descriptive, not prescriptive; deck never tells the reader what to do
42
closing
Scalar calibration For Life insurance business
“A competent two-part technical memo with disciplined callouts but topic-label titles and an appendix-buried structure — useful as a teaching example for callout writing and case-study framing, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Action titles default to noun phrases ('DESIGN DECISIONS: …', 'COUNTRY-SPECIFIC DETAILED ANALYSIS – …') instead of insights, forcing the reader to extract the point from the callout.
42
closing
Solving fashion’s product returns
“A British Fashion Council research report dressed as a deck — strong evidence, well-quantified problem, and excellent recommendation/case-study pairing, but inconsistent action titles and a placeholder-titled call-to-action mean it is a useful exemplar for analytical build-up and case-study integration, not for Storymakers structural discipline.”
↓ ~14 slides use the deck title 'Solving Fashion's Product Returns' as the slide title (pp.8, 19, 21, 26, 35, 42, 55, 59, 60, 64, 81, 82, 85, 87), forfeiting the action-title slot entirely.
42
closing
Market Year in Review and Outlook 2021
“A competent industry-association data briefing with a few exemplary action titles and callouts, but structurally an analytical dump with empty dividers, mid-deck methodology, and a non-sequitur close — useful as a teaching example for individual slide titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ p.4 section divider wastes a structural slot by just repeating the deck title instead of naming the pillar
42
closing
Digitizing Make in India Report 2024
“A disciplined sector-intelligence report with exemplary parallel sub-structure inside Section 02, but it reads like an analytical reference manual rather than a Storymakers narrative — use the sunrise-sector template as a teaching example for MECE sub-pillars, not as a model for opening or closing a deck.”
↓ No answer-first opening: two 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' pages (pp. 5-6) use the label as the title instead of stating the thesis, and the first insight-bearing action title doesn't appear until p. 10.
42
closing
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
42
closing
Navigating uncertain skies Commercial Aerospace Insight Report
“A solid industry-outlook report with quantified evidence and parallel recommendations, but the recommend-before-diagnose sequencing and absent closing CTA make it a better teaching example for action-title writing than for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendations (p.13–15) precede the deeper diagnostic of costs, production, and risk (p.18–22), inverting the analyze→recommend order
42
closing
January Macro Brief
“A strong analytical brief with exemplary declarative action titles and well-placed recommendations, but it stops short of being a Storymakers exemplar because it never closes the loop — use p.5/p.13/p.24 as title-writing teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on trend #10 (p.40) then a team bio (p.41) with no 'what to do first' or consolidated action slide
42
closing
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
42
closing
Grocery profitability outlook –Europe
“Disciplined analytical build with exemplary action titles and quantified levers, but it tapers into case studies without a closing recommendation — use the diagnosis and impact-sizing sections (p.5-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the resolution arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or CTA slide — deck terminates on a Walmart case study (p.40) before the appendix.
42
closing
Homeowner availability study
“A competent regulatory study with an excellent action-title stretch in section 04 and clean quantitative anchoring throughout, but it opens with topic labels and closes with 'considerations' instead of a recommendation — use the p.13–p.33 sequence as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.38–42 deliver 'KEY TAKEAWAYS' and four flavors of 'CONSIDERATIONS' but never say what Colorado should do
42
closing
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
42
closing
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
42
closing
Socio-economic case for deepening solar PV deployment in Nigeria
“A textbook BCG pillar-analysis deck with exemplary action titles and MECE structure, but it buries the recommendation in a single slide and ends on 'Thank you' — use the middle (p.20-76) as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not the opening or the close.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.85) after 76 pages of analysis — 12 interventions named but no prioritization, owners, or sequencing
42
closing
COVID-19 BCG Perspectives Publication #5 with a focus on Revamping Organizations for the New Reality
“A hybrid briefing/publication with a strong analytical spine but no resolution act — use the economic-scenarios section (p.28-35) as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends at p.38 and drops straight into appendix (p.39-42), disclaimer (p.44), and contact (p.45)
42
closing
ALTAGAMMA 2018 WORLDWIDE LUXURY MARKET MONITOR
“A data-rich industry monitor with disciplined numeric action titles and an early-stated thesis, but it buries the 'so what' under an analytical sprawl and fades into a vague purpose exhortation — use pp. 2, 11, 18 and 26 as teaching examples of insight titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Resolution collapses into one vague slide (p. 30 'Be driven by purpose...') with no prioritized moves or owner/timeline — weak 'so what' for a 30-page build-up
42
closing
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument
42
closing
ey iif bank risk management survey
“A well-structured survey reference report with strong callouts but weak Storymakers discipline — use its front-loaded exec summary as a teaching example, but its raw 'Figure N: <question>' titles and absent recommendation are exactly what the methodology argues against.”
↓ Body-slide titles are mostly raw survey questions prefixed 'Figure N:' (pp.8,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,26,27,29,32,33) — the single biggest Storymakers failure in the deck
42
closing
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
42
closing
Gartner Introduction 2025
“A well-crafted investor introduction with a strong opening thesis and several exemplary quantified action titles, but structurally a company tour - use individual slides (pp. 3, 17, 29, 35) as Storymakers title-writing exemplars, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Repeated identical divider title 'Gartner: Who We Are' across six slides destroys MECE signaling