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 4 / 46
72
closing
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
70
closing
AUTOMOTIVE –OES
“Competent Accenture research report with a legible SCQA spine and strong quantified titles, but the recommendation act is under-built relative to the diagnosis — use the opening (p.2-4) and transitions (p.19, p.22) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the resolution.”
↓ The 'four best practices' resolution (p.20-21) is compressed — practices 1-2 barely visible, 3-4 share one slide
70
closing
Blueprint for Service Success
“A competently structured consulting deck with a real S-C-A-R arc and a strong segmentation frame, but weakened by topic-label titles and a buried thesis — use its segmentation and roadmap slides as teaching examples, not its opening or titling.”
↓ Titles frequently fall back to figure labels ('Figure 1a', 'Figure 2c', 'Figure 5') instead of stating the insight the figure proves
70
closing
FULL VALUE. FULL STOP How to scale innovation and achieve full value with Future Systems
“A well-structured analytical benchmark report with a clear Think→Act→Move spine and evidence-rich recommendation titles — use the numbered 'Act Like' section (p.17-22) as a Storymakers teaching example, but treat the opening and the soft p.26 close as cautionary tales of burying the stakes and under-specifying the call to action.”
↓ The thesis surfaces on p.3-4 but the single most provocative stat (46% revenue at risk) is held until p.25 instead of headlining the opening
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
Tillsonburg IT Strategic Review
“A competently structured public-sector advisory deck with a clear S-C-A-R spine and strong callouts, but undercut by topic-label titles and a slow opener — useful as a teaching example of clean section flow, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Slow opening: five slides of front matter/scaffolding before the stakes land (p.1–5)
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
70
closing
Steering Clear of the IT Danger Zones
“A competent short-form Executive Insights brief with strong action titles and a clean recommendation, but the bullish opening undercuts the 'danger zones' thesis — useful as an example of tight title craft, less so as a model of SCQA tension-setting.”
↓ Opening slides (p.2-4) lead with optimism and bury the 'danger' thesis the cover promises until p.5-6
70
closing
Outperformers High-Growth Emerging Economies
“A solid MGI-style analytical build with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it leads with description instead of stakes and ends on a URL — use the title-writing and case-study integration as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit complication/tension act — the deck moves from 'here is a fact' to 'here is the framework' without a 'why this matters now' beat
70
closing
MTA Financial Impact COVID-19
“A methodologically rigorous McKinsey forecast deck with strong precedent framing and a MECE revenue/cost spine, but it buries the $8.5B answer until p.33 and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for scenario analysis structure, not for Storymakers opening or action-title craft.”
↓ Buries the answer: the $8.5B total impact does not appear until p.33 of 38; opening is two disclaimers + cover + TOC with no executive summary
70
closing
Bike Sharing 4.0
“A competent thought-leadership deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation, but the missing six-factor scaffolding and absent section dividers keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action-title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ The 'six factors' promised on p.3 are never explicitly enumerated or used as section dividers, so the analytical core (p.19-26) loses MECE clarity
70
closing
Megatrend 2 Health & Care
“A well-titled, evidence-rich trend compendium with a clean SCQA setup and a real recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantitative callouts, but its 40-slide undivided analytical middle makes it a weak structural exemplar of MECE pillar architecture.”
↓ 40+ consecutive analyze_data / industry_trends slides (pp.12-54) with no breather, summary, or pillar divider — reads as a topic dump rather than a story
70
closing
Megatrend 5 – Technology & Innovation
“A disciplined, evidence-rich trend compendium with strong action titles and a rare explicit recommend block, but structurally a flat technology inventory rather than a tensioned narrative — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft and quantitative anchoring, not for story architecture.”
↓ Opening (p.1-5) is corporate-publication boilerplate — series framing, agenda, definition — with no hook, no stakes, no thesis statement; the reader has waited five pages before any argument lands