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 8 / 46
65
closing
ey tt amcham presentation 2023 economic outlook 20230123
“A competent survey-results deck with strong action-title craft on individual slides, but structurally it is a parallel findings dump rather than a Storymakers argument — useful as an exemplar of action-title writing, not of narrative arc.”
↓ No upfront answer — the thesis/recommendation is never stated in the first 5 slides; the reader must reach p9 for the first insight and p35 for the conclusion
65
closing
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
65
closing
Eyepoint Goldman Sachs June 10 2025
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong quantified action titles on the data slides but a weak complication and a duplicated section spine — use p.20-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (p.15 and p.22 both titled 'Phase 2 VERONA Clinical Trial in DME') signal a broken or copy-pasted spine, not MECE pillars
65
closing
2022 asset wealth management investor day
“A solid investor-day analytical build with a memorable five-pillar spine, but it skips the complication act and ends on KPIs rather than a commitment — use p.7-11 as a teaching example of MECE pillar structure, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'we're growing' (p.3-4) straight to 'here's how we'll keep growing' (p.5+) without naming the threat
65
closing
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
65
closing
Q125 Results Presentation
“A disciplined bank earnings readout with strong group-level action titles but topic-label divisional openers and a thin narrative frame — useful as an exemplar of numeric headlines on group slides, not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Division-opener KPI dashboards (p.4, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24) are topic labels, not action titles — they waste the prime spot of each section
65
closing
20240618 Barclays UK Corporate Bank Deep Dive
“A well-structured three-pillar strategic update with strong MECE scaffolding and quantified titles, but one that buries its thesis in the opening and fades into Q&A at the close — useful as a teaching example for mid-deck pillar construction, not for narrative hook or landing.”
↓ Opening four slides (p.1-4) are context/KPI dashboards with no stated thesis — the 'So what' is delayed to p.10
62
closing
Bridging the Skills Gap in the Future Workforce
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear problem→answer→ask spine, but it breaks its own 'three steps' MECE promise and hides insights behind generic chart labels — use p.7, p.20, and p.22 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Missing STEP TWO and STEP THREE dividers — the MECE promise made on p.16 is never kept, so pp.22 and 25 read as a stream rather than parallel pillars
62
closing
The Hidden Value of Culture Makers
“A well-crafted thought-leadership narrative with a strong opening and a memorable proprietary framework, but it trails off into case studies and a soft CTA instead of landing a prescriptive recommendation — use the opening and quantified-stakes sections as teaching examples, not the closing.”
↓ Conclusion slide (p.22) titled 'In conclusion' — textbook topic-label anti-pattern in a deck that otherwise uses action titles
62
closing
The art of AI maturity Advancing from practice to performance
“A disciplined Accenture thought-leadership deck with a genuine SCQA spine and a clean five-pillar recommend+case-study build — use the divider ladder and pillar pairing as a teaching example, but not the soft landing or the label-style analytical titles.”
↓ No explicit call-to-action slide; the deck trails off into author bios (p.32–33) and a six-page appendix (p.34–39), with the C-suite self-assessment (p.31) buried before them
62
closing
The next billion consumers
“A solid thought-leadership deck with a strong quantified opening and clean segmentation, but the recommendation framework is under-titled and the close rallies rather than resolves; useful as an exemplar for action-title data slides, not for closing arc.”
↓ Four-driver framework (p.27-38) is introduced via divider words ('Digital brain', 'Digital brawn') not insight titles, and each driver is explained through 'Ask:' prompts rather than imperatives
62
closing
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
62
closing
Seeing the BIG Picture
“A structurally elegant thought-leadership report with a MECE cinematic spine and strong insight-bearing analytical titles — use the LIGHTS/CAMERA/ACTION build (pp.10–43) as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar design and declarative titling, but not as a model for opening, closing, or transition discipline.”
↓ Five filler transition slides (pp.7, 9, 25, 41, 45) plus a literal '55' placeholder (p.55) bleed momentum between every section
62
closing
Path to digital marketing maturity
“A tight, well-argued BCG report with strong action titles and a coherent S-C-A-R arc, but it buries its shock stat and closes on a generic 'Closing remarks' - use slides 5, 8, and 9 as teaching examples of insight titles, not the opener or closer.”
↓ Thesis buried on p.5 rather than stated in the first 2-3 slides - opener under-indexes on stakes
62
closing
Impact of IRA IIJA CHIPS Clean Tech
“A tight, answer-first policy-impact deck with strong quantified action titles but a softened arc (complication after analysis) and a topic-label closing — use p.3-p.6 as a teaching example for headline writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Complication slides (p.7 'Pre-legislation challenges', p.8 'Remaining challenges') land after the impact sizing, weakening the SCQA tension that would normally precede the analysis
62
closing
AI Raising Stakes Cybersecurity
“Solid BCG research slideshow with a clean S→C→A→R spine and strong declarative titles, but the recommendation is compressed into one slide — use it as a teaching example for action titles and opening stakes, not for resolution design.”
↓ Resolution is undersized — a single p.20 priorities slide has to carry the entire «what to do» after 10 diagnostic slides
62
closing
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
62
closing
Stepping Up the Pace Manufacturing
“A competent Cognizant thought-leadership report with a legible three-act pillar structure and strong benchmarking evidence, but it buries its recommendation and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for MECE section dividers and leader-vs-laggard storytelling, not for answer-first opening or decisive closing.”
↓ No answer-first opening — neither cover (p.1) nor intro (p.3) states the recommendation; reader must reach p.14-16 to see the 'copy the leaders' thesis
62
closing
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
62
closing
IBV The Cognitive Enterprise
“A competent IBM thought-leadership brief with the right ingredients (client cases, a stake stat, next steps) but undermined by repeated topic-label titles and an invisible pillar structure — useful as a teaching example of why action-titling and section dividers matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides reuse the identical title 'The Cognitive Enterprise: The finance opportunity' (p.4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18), erasing any sense of forward motion
62
closing
Moving Laggards Early Adopters
“Solid mid-tier McKinsey explainer with a strong analytical middle and a clear three-part recommendation, but it buries the thesis behind a generic problem-overview opener and fades into a 'Thank You' close — useful as a teaching example for analytical action titles, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ Duplicated/topic-label titles in the opening (pp.3-4 share 'Overview of Challenges with Technology Implementation in Manufacturing'); no thesis appears in the first 5 slides
62
closing
Sustainability Risk Under Solvency II
“A well-structured analytical thought-leadership white paper with disciplined action titles but generic section dividers and a soft, non-committal close — use it as a title-quality exemplar, not as a model of MECE pillar structure or commercial closing.”
↓ Section dividers (p4, p9, p15, p27, p36) all repeat the same deck title — zero MECE pillar labels, so the reader has no map of the argument's structure.
62
closing
Innovation Engine for Growth Playbook
“A solid methodology playbook with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, undermined by a marketing-brochure opening, topic-label titles, and excessive divider padding — use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the narrative or title craft.”
↓ Slides 1–5 burn the entire opening on cover/filler/dividers/TOC; thesis doesn't appear until p.6 — fails the 'lead with the answer' test
62
closing
Retail banking survey Sustainability and retail banking
“Competent short-form thought-leadership whitepaper with a clear risk thesis but topic-label titles and a thin recommendation - useful as a teaching example for callout writing and S->C->A->R skeleton, not for action-title craft or closing punch.”
↓ Page titles are nouns/topics, not declarative insights - the strong callouts on p.4, p.6, p.8 should have been promoted to titles