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
737 matching · page 7 / 31
55
closing
Port of LA Clean Truck Program
“A solid 2008 BCG business-case deck with a competent analytical spine and one exemplary action title at p.15, but the buried thesis and post-conclusion option dumps make it a teaching example for analytical rigor, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Structural misplacement: 'Agenda' divider at p.17 after the 'Conclusion' at p.16 inverts deck logic — option deep-dives (p.18-20) should precede, not follow, the recommendation
55
closing
End of management as we know it
“Well-scaffolded problem-diagnosis deck with strong action titles and MECE dividers, but the 'answer' act is thin and there's no explicit recommendation — use the opening and divider chain as a Storymakers teaching example, not the resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p.28 is an illustrative observation, not a call to action
55
closing
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
55
closing
Gen Z Attitudes Toward Higher Education
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong action titles and one good transition hinge, but flat structure and a soft landing make it a title-craft exemplar rather than a full Storymakers model.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — the 11 analytical slides read as a flat sequence rather than grouped chapters
55
closing
Winning on the Margins TeBIT 2023
“A competent BCG benchmark readout with declarative titles and a solid opening, but it buries its recommendation and ends on an observation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and S->C openings, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — p.14 ends on an observation, burying the call to action
55
closing
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
55
closing
2017 China Luxury Market Study
“A well-titled analytical market briefing with strong pull-quotes but no prescriptive payoff — use it as a teaching example for action titles and evidence-backed callouts, not for story architecture or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.15 and p.19 hint at brand plays but none crystallize a prescriptive next step
55
closing
Insights from the leading edge of generative AI adoption
“Solid Deloitte thought-leadership survey deck with strong action-title craft in the middle but a diffuse opening and a repetitive four-slide close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative structure.”
↓ Four closing slides titled identically 'Next: Looking ahead' (p.25, 27, 29, 30) — reader cannot distinguish the recommendations or track progress
55
closing
Inclusion and Diversity Survey Make It More Than A Mantra
“Solid analytical survey deck with disciplined action titles in the middle but a thin resolution - useful as a teaching example for cornerstone-framework reuse and section chaptering, not for closing the loop from stakes to recommendation.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.30) with a generic title and no enumerated levers, despite p.29 promising '4 key opportunities for differentiation'.
55
closing
2020 CEO Outlook COVID-19
“A competently themed survey-findings deck with a stated three-pillar frame but no recommendation payoff — useful as a teaching example of action-title statistics, not of full SCQA story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.21 'In summary' is reflective, not directive
55
closing
USPS Future Business Model
“A solid diagnostic-and-options McKinsey deck with a strong quantified middle act but a weak topic-dump close — use pp.3-19 and pp.22-29 as a Storymakers exemplar for SCQA build and quantified action titles, not the recommendation section.”
↓ Closing collapses into topic-label dumps (pp.33-37) — 'Pricing opportunities for USPS', 'Workforce opportunities for USPS' — none carry an insight
55
closing
Global Health Partnerships Stop TB
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic-and-design deck with strong analytical action titles inside each chapter, but structurally a topic dump organized by team rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for KPI-tree slides (p.19-23) and pull-quote callouts, not for overall arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening flows straight from context (p.3) into approach/phasing (p.5) without telling the audience the answer
55
closing
Global Hydrogen Flows
“A well-structured McKinsey analytical report with quantified action titles and a clean section spine, but it buries the recommendation behind framing language and trails into appendix — use the analytical middle (p.10-25) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide near the close — p.34-36 settle for framing ('regions have key roles', LNG parallels) instead of 'do these three things'
55
closing
GenAI German Labor Market
“A well-evidenced analytical build with strong quantified action titles, but the story arc resolves twice and never closes — use the p.10-16 analytical sequence as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing call-to-action — deck trails off on benchmarking (p.23) and a logo slide (p.24) instead of a 'so what / now what' resolution
55
closing
Customers in spotlight FinTech banking
“A competent industry-trends brief with a strong opening hook and credible data, but the recommendation act is a single slide — useful as an example of leading with the answer, weaker as a model of MECE pillars or a built-out resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act is one slide deep (p.9) — the 'win-win partnership' thesis on p.8 deserves its own build of how/who/when, not a single conclusion paragraph
55
closing
2019 Global Treasury Benchmarking
“A competent benchmarking survey with above-average thesis-style dividers and number-led headlines, but it reads as six parallel mini-essays rather than one Storymakers arc — use the pillar dividers and recommendation slides as teaching examples, not the overall structure or close.”
↓ Two back-to-back 'Theme overviews' dividers (p.4 and p.5) waste opening real estate and signal a topic dump rather than a story.
55
closing
Automated Trucks The next big disruptor in the automotive industry?
“Solid analytical Roland Berger short-version with strong quantified action titles in the economics section, but it withholds the thesis up front and dribbles out the recommendation — use p.11-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No leading 'answer slide' — the core recommendation is never stated in the first 3 pages; p.2 'THE BIG 3' withholds rather than reveals
55
closing
Barriers to FinTech innovation in the Netherlands
“Competent Roland Berger policy deck with clear three-act scaffolding and mostly declarative titles, but it under-builds the tension and fades into appendix instead of landing a call to action — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing structure.”
↓ No synthesis or call-to-action slide before the appendix — the deck ends mid-thought at p.31 and dumps 10 supporting slides
55
closing
Roland Berger Construction Radar – Impacts on DACH region
“Tight, answer-first scenario-planning deck with strong analytical spine but a thin recommendation tail — use p.2 and p.5-9 as Storymakers exemplars for executive summaries and quantified action titles, not for the closing arc.”
↓ Recommendation compressed into a single slide (p.11) with a generic callout — disproportionate to the 4-slide analytical build-up
55
closing
The seventh disruption to the Global Polymer Industry
“A well-crafted historical build-up that earns its thesis but stops at problem-framing — use slides 2-8 as a teaching example of inductive action titles, not the deck as a whole, since the recommendation act is missing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.11 substitutes a Roland Berger credentials pitch for a concrete answer to 'how do you win the seventh disruption?'
55
closing
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
55
closing
Sustainability Study 2024
“A competently structured short-form thought-leadership brochure with a clear two-act spine and strong data callouts, but it under-delivers on its own 'four actions' promise and closes with a capabilities pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven storytelling, not for action-title discipline or closing craft.”
↓ The 'four key actions' promised on p.12 do not appear as four parallel slides — only p.13 and p.14 are visible, so the MECE promise is broken
55
closing
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
55
closing
Lloyd’s and Bermuda
“A competent analytical talk-deck with a strong middle (quantified action titles, well-built reserving and rate-hardening story) but a definitional opening and a hand-wave ending — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analysis slides, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no thesis or stakes — reader doesn't know the question being answered until ~p.11