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 39 / 46
25
closing
Internet Advertising Revenue Report
“A competently-titled industry data report whose individual slide titles are above-average Storymakers craft, but the deck as a whole is a category-by-category data tour with no SCQA arc and no recommendation -- use slides 5-11 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: there is a Situation (growth) and Complication (COVID) but no Question or Resolution -- the deck never tells the audience what to do with the findings
25
closing
Dissecting 2023-24 Budget Speech
“A topic-organised budget summary that is informationally competent but narratively inert — useful as a counter-example for action-title training, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or 'so-what' anywhere in the first 4 slides — the deck never tells the reader what to conclude about the 2023/24 budget
25
closing
Challenges abound Ongoing crises call for a proactive approach
“A quarterly research bulletin with a punchy opening hook and quantified data, but no Resolution and recycled titles in the middle — useful as a teaching example of how a strong Situation/Complication can be wasted when the deck never returns to the 'call to action' it promises.”
↓ P.6, p.7, p.8 all carry the same recycled title 'Automotive Disruption Radar – Issue #7' instead of the actual insight (EV offer growing, AI investment up, mobility jobs surging) — the insight lives only in the callout
25
closing
Growth remains strong for market expansion services in Asia
“A competent parallel-pillar market-sizing brief with strong action titles but no SCQA arc and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and MECE industry structure, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No 'so what' / recommendation slide — the deck stops at p.11 and dumps into Methodology/Disclaimer with zero synthesis
25
closing
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A competent descriptive market study with mostly declarative action titles and clean pillars, but it stops at analysis and ends in firm self-promo — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on firm self-promotion (p.46-47) and appendix (p.48-52) — there is no 'implications', 'recommendation', or 'next steps' slide
25
closing
Private financing of rolling stock
“A well-structured analytical study with strong MECE pillars and metric-rich titles, but it reads as a research report rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide in the opening — the answer is delayed until p.8
25
closing
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4 2022
“A competent quarterly market bulletin with a strong opening and quotable callouts, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title openings and TCO framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.21–23 with three identical 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables, then contacts, then 'Thank you' — zero recommendations or implications for OEMs/policymakers.
25
closing
2019 APAC Hospital Priority Study Overview
“A competent analytical-overview deck with strong action titles in the body but a weak opening and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline writing on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution: deck ends on an open question (p.10) and contact slide (p.11) with zero recommendations or implications for MedTech players
25
closing
Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Spring 2019
“A solid analytical market-update deck with above-average action titles and a real attempt at tension on p.9-10, but it has no recommendation act and ends in administrative pages — useful as an example of strong title craft, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends with team bios, contacts, methodology and a logo (p.11-15)
25
closing
Accenture Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A pitch deck with a strong emotional hook and a few well-voiced action titles, but it abandons narrative arc midway and ends with a question mark instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for opening hooks, not for full Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a '?' transition (p.14) and a title-card filler (p.15) instead of a recommendation or ask
25
closing
THE IPSOS POPULISM REPORT 2025
“A well-instrumented, data-rich pollster report with strong individual trend titles but no resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles on chart slides, not as a structural Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — deck ends on a spending data table (p.55) and a contact slide (p.58)
25
closing
IPSOS POPULISM SURVEY
“A competent research-data report with a strong opening hook but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and section structure, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questionnaire text and the deck ends in branding rather than a 'so what'.”
↓ Titles are survey-question text, not action titles — slides 24-31 read like a questionnaire transcript, not an argument
25
closing
THE IPSOS AI MONITOR 2024
“A competent survey-data report with a strong opening stat but topic-label titles and a missing resolution act — useful as a counter-example of how raw survey questions kill action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 30+ slides use the literal survey question as the title (p.11-16, 20-23, 28-40), forcing the reader to derive every insight
25
closing
THE WORLD’S RESPONSE TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE
“A competent survey-results dossier with a useful early summary and strong callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar because every page is titled as a topic and there is no recommendation to land — use the callouts as a teaching example of insight sentences, not the deck structure.”
↓ Titles are uniformly topic labels, not insights — p.6 'COUNTRIES WITH STRONGEST OPINIONS' and p.11 'COUNTRIES WITH STRONGEST OPINIONS ON THEIR OWN RESPONSE' describe the chart, not the finding
25
closing
Nielsen Fan Insights
“A competent data-reporting deck with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, but not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.17 'Thank you!' with zero call to action
25
closing
API Trends
“A short trend-briefing deck with decent data points but no narrative spine — useful as a counter-example showing how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act flatten a story into a list.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1-3 establish context but never name a Complication or Question, so the audience has no reason to lean in
25
closing
Everest Group Trust and Safety Services PEAK Matrix Assessment 2025
“A reprint of a third-party analyst evaluation rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides titled 'Accenture profile (page X of 8)' (p.5-12) — pagination is not a title and erases the insight on each page
25
closing
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent PwC benchmark report with strong data hygiene but weak narrative engineering — useful as a reference artifact and as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation hollow out an otherwise data-rich deck.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends in ranking tables (pp.22-26) and a value-distribution appendix (pp.29-33), not a "so what"
25
closing
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“Analytically rigorous macro chart-pack with strong action titles in the first third, but it abandons the story arc halfway and ends without a recommendation — use pp.5-21 as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the deck structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on p.61 yield curves and p.62 About Accenture, so the reader never gets an ask
25
closing
Turkey power generation evolution and top 100 players by capacity
“A competent league-table almanac with a strong analytical opener but no recommendation or close — use pp.3-6 as an example of declarative action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — p.16 is literally 'Thank you' with no next-steps slide
25
closing
The individual health insurance market in 2023
“A solid analytical market briefing with disciplined, number-led action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 5–12 to teach insight-bearing titles, not the deck's overall arc, which lacks Complication, pillars, and Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so-what' — deck ends on p. 12 data and a wordmark (p. 13)
25
closing
Tech highlights from 2022—in eight charts
“A competent year-end chart-roundup with strong per-slide data discipline but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles (see p.4) but not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No governing thesis: the cover (p.1) and opener (p.2) never state what the eight charts collectively argue about 2022 in tech
25
closing
The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it
“Competent McKinsey explainer that opens well and uses number-led titles, but it is an analytical breakdown not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of clean BLUF openings and quantified action titles, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'what this means for you' slide — deck jumps from STEM funding (p.7) straight to author bios (p.8).
25
closing
Multi-regional transmission model
“A competent analytical build-up of a proprietary simulation tool that collapses in the final act — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and quantified callouts, but a cautionary tale on section architecture, topic-label titles, and the absence of a closing recommendation.”
↓ Broken section architecture: Roman numerals skip II and V, 'IV' appears twice (p.30 and p.33), and p.35 is a one-character divider ('U') — this alone signals the deck never got a final pass