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 8 / 27
55
closing
Secure your future people experience Five imperatives for action
“A textbook MECE-pillar consulting deck with strong case-study evidence and a clean five-act body, but a buried opener and an essay-style close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Soft close: p.31-32 read like an essay coda rather than a recommendation slide; no prioritization, sequencing, or 'where to start' guidance
55
closing
CEO Panel Survey Emerge Stronger
“A competent survey-readout deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation slide, but the placeholder titles and thin close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.3/p.4/p.7 as title-writing teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Four slides (p.5, 6, 10, 12) carry the placeholder title 'CEO Panel Survey | n' — wasted real estate where an action title should live
55
closing
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
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
Rail supply digitization
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with disciplined action titles and a visible four-act spine, but it diagnoses without prescribing and ends as a Pathfinder sales pitch — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for closing a story.”
↓ Closing collapses into a product pitch: p.33-36 sell the Digital Pathfinder rather than synthesize survey takeaways into a recommendation
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
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
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
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
55
closing
Process Automation: A quickly growing market with structural tailwinds and investment opportunities
“Competent L.E.K./Harris Williams M&A market briefing with a strong opening hook and declarative analytical titles, but the resolution dissolves into a teaser rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for opening and parallel-pillar analysis, not for closing.”
↓ Ending is a teaser, not a recommendation — p21 'look for additional reports' substitutes a marketing CTA for an investor takeaway
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
The generative AI advantage in financial services
“A serviceable thought-leadership PDF with one strong action title and disciplined callouts, but structurally a topic-dump that buries its thesis and ends in a vendor pitch — useful as a teaching example of weak openings and noun-titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening is dead weight — p.1 cover + p.2 generic 'Introduction' burn two of the deck's ten pages without establishing stakes or thesis
55
closing
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
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
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
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'.