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
635 matching · page 7 / 27
55
closing
Reimagining the Agenda
“A competently structured three-act survey readout whose analytical middle is a solid Storymakers teaching example, but whose missing thesis-up-front and collapsed recommendation act make it a cautionary tale for closings rather than a full exemplar.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: cover (p.1) and TOC (p.2) don't state the answer, so the reader waits until p.11 to see the recommendation framing
55
closing
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
55
closing
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 7th Edition
“A well-structured BCG/Altagamma research-insights deck with above-average action titles and a clean three-pillar body, but it buries its recommendation in a single closing slide — use it as a teaching example for pillar architecture and quantified titles, not for answer-first storytelling.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the deck takes until p.31 to surface recommendations, and even then the title ('several priority investments') is a hedge rather than a claim
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
US Natural Gas Future Standalone
“Strong analytical build with disciplined action titles and well-named pillars, but the arc sequences scenarios before constraints and closes with a restatement rather than a recommendation — use it as a Storymakers exemplar for title craft and pillar labeling, not for SCQA sequencing or endings.”
↓ Section order inverts SCQA: Scenarios (p16-18) come before Constraints (p19-21), so the 'question' is posed before the complication that makes it urgent
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
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“A high-craft thought-leadership report with exemplary action-title discipline and clean MECE pillars, but it opens procedurally and trails off into a country appendix instead of landing a recommendation -- use its titles and section architecture as a Storymakers teaching example, not its opening or closing.”
↓ Opening burns 7 slides on front matter before the thesis lands at p.8 -- no hook or stakes in the first 5
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
New Brunswick Supply Chain Study
“Thorough, analytically-rigorous public-sector supply-chain study with a competent opening thesis and disciplined scenario analysis — but titles default to topic labels and the recommendation is crushed into one slide after 23 pages of diagnosis; use it as a teaching example for demand modeling and vendor mapping structure, not for Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels — e.g. p.6 'Key Findings', p.28 'Vendor categorization', p.56 'Risk mitigation plan' — wasting the title real-estate that Storymakers treats as the primary message channel
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
ICO Class of 2017
“A tight, thesis-led analytical report with strong action titles in the middle, but it ends on a topic label instead of a recommendation — use pp2-10 as a teaching example of quantified action titles, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide — p11 'Key takeaways and outlook' is a topic label with a hedged VC-comparison callout
55
closing
Risk management in transformation
“A competently structured analytical survey report with a visible three-act spine and a recommendation slide, but too many titles are topic labels or figure captions — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture and front-loaded takeaways, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Roughly a third of body slides use raw figure captions as titles ('Figure 10...', 'Figure 15...', 'Figure 24...', 'Figure 25...') — topic labels, not findings
55
closing
Reset Innovation Priorities
“A solid whitepaper-style how-to with a strong opening question and useful frameworks, but Storymakers-weak — figure-caption titles and a generic close make this a teaching example for analytical scaffolding, not narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are figure captions, not insights — every framework slide (p.4, p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.15) is titled 'Figure N: …'
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
What is and how to navigate the RAS opportunity in LatAm?
“A competent thought-leadership primer with strong market-sizing titles but a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles and macro-to-micro flow, not for SCQA resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.13 names barriers and p.14 says OEMs 'need to consider specific market dynamics' without revealing what they are or what to do
55
closing
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
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
Reinventing Construction Higher Productivity
“A solid MGI extract with strong quantified opening and clean action-title style, but repeated CONTENTS dividers and a hedged close make it a better teaching example for title-writing than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Three identical 'CONTENTS' slides (p.2, p.7, p.11) substitute for proper pillared dividers and break narrative momentum
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
The Heartbeat of Progress
“A competent OliverWyman thought-leadership study with strong action titles and a BLUF opening, but it ends in a soft conclusion plus decorative filler — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 17 pages flow as a topic list, hurting orientation
55
closing
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate