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 8 / 31
55
closing
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
55
closing
The future trends in ASEAN steel market
“A solid analytical consulting deck with strong action titles and a clean three-pillar recommendation, but it buries the lead and fades into a generic close — useful as an exemplar for action-title writing and MECE pillars, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Buried lead — thesis arrives on p.5 after a credentials slide (p.2) and a topic-label slide (p.3 'Key trends in...')
55
closing
Towards the unified secondary market: The evolution of distribution channels and evaluation of Asset Tokenization Benefi
“A competent EY thought-leadership deck with a strong analytical middle and a quantified opening, but it ends as a service pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension-building, not for closing structure.”
↓ Four 'Content' dividers (p.6, p.10, p.12, p.18) labeled identically — wasted opportunity to name MECE pillars
55
closing
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
55
closing
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry-research report with answer-first openings and quantified action titles on the analytics, but the recommendations and close are weak — use slides 7, 8, and 12 as Storymakers exemplars of declarative titling, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.14, p.15) carry the section-divider label as their action title, hiding the actual insight
55
closing
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
55
closing
Perspective on Tower & Fiber
“A competent McKinsey 'perspective' brief with strong stakes-setting and mostly declarative titles, but it ends on a menu instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of opening discipline, not as a Storymakers exemplar of resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7 ends on "several strategic plays available," which is a menu, not a verdict.
55
closing
Generative AI Making Waves
“A well-structured analytical taxonomy with a memorable proprietary framework (WaveGram), but topic-label titles and a soft open/close make it a teaching example for framework design and MECE decomposition — not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly nouns/labels (p.20, p.26, p.28–34, p.43–49) — the deck reads as taxonomy, not argument
55
closing
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025
“A solid annual-outlook reference deck with disciplined action titles on data pages, but the architecture is a topic dump rather than an argument — use the macro slides (p.12-p.30) as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not the deck-level structure.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — slides 1-7 are all methodology and credentialing, so a reader has to wait until p.9 to see the headline 'Resetting expectations, refocusing inward, recharging growth'.
55
closing
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
55
closing
Women in Work Index 2019
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with disciplined action titles and a quantified hook, but it ends as a data reference rather than a call to action — use slides 5, 6, 14, 23 as Storymakers exemplars for action-title craft, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Resolution is under-built: only 2 slides (p.29 'five foundations', p.30 process diagram) carry the entire 'so what should we do' load after 25 slides of analysis
55
closing
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
55
closing
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“Competent short-form macro outlook with a textbook arc and two model action titles, but it buries the lead and asks rather than answers in the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for p.6-style titles, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening 3 slides (cover, outline, dashboard) bury the lead — no thesis stated in the first 5 pages
55
closing
Achieving Supply Chain Resilience in a Volatile World
“A tight, disciplined executive perspective with a recognizable S→C→A→R arc, but the recommendation fizzles — useful as a teaching example for compact narrative structure, not for how to land a close.”
↓ p.9 recommendation title ends in a colon ('...policies that:') — the deck's punchline is effectively a setup line, not a resolution
55
closing
Artificial Intelligence: Ready to Ride the Wave?
“A polished BCG executive-perspectives deck with strong action titles and a clear opening thesis, but it ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation — use pp.3-4 and pp.14-20 as Storymakers exemplars for opening and action titles, not for closing structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck drifts from p.20 recommendation straight into appendix deep-dives with no 'next 90 days' or CTA
55
closing
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“Solid analytical build with a genuinely strong tension hook on p.8, but the recommendation is under-developed and the close fades into annex — use the paradox framing and country-benchmark sequence as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slide p.22 is advisory-but-vague; no explicit 'what to do Monday morning' recommendation list
55
closing
Hydrogen applications and business models
“An exhaustive, well-titled reference FactBook with consultant-grade analytical rigor but a buried thesis and a missing resolution — use the business-case section (p.128-184) as a teaching example for evidence ladders, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or pyramid lead — the integrating answer ('heavy-duty transport is the most promising near-term H2 business model') sits on p.14-15 of a 192-page deck instead of p.3
55
closing
European Deep Tech – Opportunities and Discoveries
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with a clean A–E narrative spine and quantified titles, but it buries the thesis up front and fizzles into a generic 'collective effort' close — use sections B and C as Storymakers exemplars, not the bookends.”
↓ Closing slide p.18 is generic ('collective effort from all actors') with no recommendations, owners, or next steps — and contains a typo ('Deel Tech')
55
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
55
closing
2023 Ipsos Global Trends Report
“A well-crafted trends report with disciplined action titles and a strong opening hook, but it reads as an encyclopedia of twelve parallel chapters rather than a single argument — useful as a teaching example for chapter-level structure and title craft, not for overall narrative escalation or closing punch.”
↓ Twelve trend chapters of near-identical structure flatten the narrative — there is no escalation or ranking of which trends matter most for the reader
55
closing
ipsos global trends 2021 report
“A genuinely well-titled, MECE-structured trends report that earns its analytical middle but fumbles the close — use slides 18–46 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the ending.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what': the deck ends on a rhetorical question (p.50) and a corporate slide (p.51) — readers leave without an action
55
closing
Morgan Stanley Investor Presentation
“A competent IR deck with a clean three-pillar strategy spine but a missing Complication and a drifting close — use p.13-15 as a teaching example of pillared recommendation, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No explicit Complication: the deck asserts strength but never frames the tension (rate environment, student-loan policy risk, federal competition) the strategy is meant to resolve
55
closing
2023.05.31 Bernstein Conference
“A disciplined investor-day growth narrative with strong quantified titles but a missing Complication and a soft close — useful as an exemplar of numeric action titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Complication slide — the deck never names the obstacle, competitive threat, or 'why this is hard,' so Situation flows straight to Answer without tension
55
closing
Goldman Sachs conference April 2021
“A competent investor-conference update that opens with the answer and lands a guidance upgrade, but soft pillar structure and an appendix-then-contact ending keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.2, p.5, p.11, p.12 as action-title teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Weak close: last substantive slide is a reconciliation (p.15) and the deck ends on «Contact» (p.18) with no recommendation or forward-looking ask