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 7 / 46
68
closing
2019 cib investor day ba56d0e8
“A well-built JPM investor-day showcase with disciplined MECE pillars and metric-rich action titles, but it is a results-defense deck rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.3–6 and the Markets build (pp.14–22) as title-quality and pillar-structure references, not as a model for narrative tension.”
↓ No SCQA complication — the deck never names a tension, threat, or strategic question, so every section reads as a victory lap rather than a resolution.
68
closing
FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation
“A polished, MECE earnings deck with disciplined action titles in the financial walk but no Complication and a recycled close — useful as a teaching example for top-down financial titling and divisional MECE, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication act — nowhere in the first 10 slides is a tension, headwind, or stakeholder doubt named, so the 'progress' story has nothing to push against
66
closing
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
65
closing
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
65
closing
Hyper-disruption demands constant reinvention
“A well-scaffolded analytical report with a legible S-C-R arc and mostly declarative titles, but it buries the ask in a sprawling sub-pillar-less recommendation act and ends with summary rather than CTA — use the opening framing and data-forward titling as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Seven slides use the 'A quick take on...' construction (p.9, p.11, p.24, p.26, p.30, p.32, p.33), a topic-label pattern that undercuts the otherwise declarative title standard
65
closing
Make the leap, take the lead: Tech strategies for innovation and growth
“A well-architected analytical thought-leadership deck with a strong MECE pillar (Replatform/Reframe/Reach) and quantified narrative — use it as a teaching example for pillar design and action-titling, but not for opening hook or closing CTA.”
↓ The headline insight (5x growth gap) is buried until p.6 — the cover (p.1) and opening context (p.2) waste the highest-attention real estate.
65
closing
Ready for take-off Why niche markets are the next big thing
“A competent thought-leadership white-paper-as-deck with a real S-C-A-R skeleton and strong evidence, but undermined by repeated topic-label CTAs and a missing concrete close — useful as a teaching example for evidence callouts, not for action-titling discipline.”
↓ Three identical 'What can today's business leaders do?' titles (p.16, p.20, p.26) — wasted real estate, no insight in the title
65
closing
Reinventing for resilience
“A solid analytical Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong action titles on its data pages and proprietary IP, but the SCQA arc is bottom-heavy: use the data slides (p7, p11, p14, p17) as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slide 18 is a verbatim duplicate of slide 17's headline — a wasted page that signals weak editorial discipline
65
closing
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
65
closing
The “new” rules of engagement
“A solid survey-report deck with strong action titles and a readable tension-release arc, but it leads with context rather than the answer and under-delivers on the close — use p.7-12 as a teaching example of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.4 and p.5 are near-duplicate 'key message' slides up front — redundancy dilutes the opening
65
closing
Moneyball Moment Marketing Canada
“A well-structured analytical-thesis deck with thesis-bearing section dividers and number-anchored titles — use the pillar architecture and action-title craft as a Storymakers exemplar, but not the opening or the call-to-action close.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the first 3 pages — the actual recommendation is buried until p.20; p.6 lists five insights but does not lead with the verdict
65
closing
The Canadian Venture Opportunity
“A well-structured three-act BCG thought-leadership report with strong action titles in the diagnosis — use the p.13-18 benchmarking sequence as a teaching example, but flag the thin recommendation act and slow open as what Storymakers would fix.”
↓ Front-matter drag: 4 slides (cover, author note, agenda, quote collage) before the thesis appears on p.6 — buries the lede
65
closing
IBV Smarter Workforce Institute
“A competent IBV thought-leadership deck with a real recommendation (FORT) at the end, but the repeated topic-label titles and bloated context section make it a teaching example for naming discipline, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ The same title 'Amplifying employee voice' is reused on p.1, 4, 6, 8, and 22 — wastes the most valuable real estate on the slide
65
closing
2021 CEO Outlook
“A solid survey-summary deck that leads with the answer and closes with explicit actions, but mixed title quality and unlabeled pillars make it a useful teaching example of 'thesis upfront' rather than a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 'Trusted purpose' is reused as the title for both p.12 and p.13 — readers cannot tell the slides apart from the ToC
65
closing
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
65
closing
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
65
closing
Crisis Preparedness 2019
“A thesis-driven survey deck with above-average action titles and a clean bookend, but the four sections are topical rather than MECE and the 'do these 5 things' recommendation is referenced rather than delivered — useful as a teaching example for hooks and headline writing, not for resolution structure.”
↓ p10 and p20 use 'PwC Global Crisis Survey 2019' as the slide title — brand chrome where the insight should be (74% sought outside help; preparedness as competitive advantage)
65
closing
Global Consumer Insights March 2021
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, but the soft opening detour and a vague one-page close make it a strong example of pillar discipline rather than of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ Pages 4–6 sit between the cover and the framework reveal on p.7, delaying the promised 'four fault lines' structure and reading like orphan category data
65
closing
Semiconductor shortage: A different kind of trouble ahead
“A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9 contact, p.10 about us) dilute the recommendation — no quantified next steps or memorable closing visual
65
closing
What if the US dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency?
“A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.”
↓ The cover question 'What if the US dollar loses its status...' is never answered in the first 3 slides - answer is withheld to p14, breaking 'lead with the answer'
65
closing
The State of Luxury January 2025
“A competent McKinsey state-of-industry deck with strong insight-led titles in the analytical core but a generic opening and a thin recommendation tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts, not for narrative architecture or a punchy close.”
↓ No executive-summary / BLUF slide in the first three pages — the thesis has to be reconstructed from p.4 onward
65
closing
Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound
“A tight, well-opened McKinsey 'point of view' mini-deck with insight-bearing titles and a clear value-at-stake hook, but the closing recommendation is buried in a run-on title - use the opening and metric-per-slide discipline as a teaching example, not the close.”
↓ Closing slide (p.8) action title is a 36-word run-on, not a directive; weakens the call to action
65
closing
The new digital edge: Rethinking strategy for the postpandemic era
“A well-titled, data-rich McKinsey survey readout with a clean BLUF opening but a flat complication and a rhetorical rather than prescriptive close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified callouts, not for full-arc storymaking.”
↓ No section dividers or explicit pillar architecture; the three implicit themes (endowment p.8-10, talent/innovation p.11-12, leadership p.13-15) are never named as a MECE frame
65
closing
The evolving private equity playbook
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a recognizable SCQA spine and strong quantified middle, but the opening buries its hook behind front-matter and the close fragments the recommendation — use the p.7, p.13 and p.16 titles as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Case study on p.4 precedes the problem framing on p.6–7, so the reader sees a 'result' before understanding what problem it solves