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 9 / 46
62
closing
Trend 2030 Scarcity of Resources
“A high-quality trend compendium, not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp6-16 as a teaching case for metric-bearing action titles, but its methodology-led opening, hidden pillars, and thin recommendation tail make it a poor model for full deck architecture.”
↓ Methodology-first opening: pp1-4 sell the Compendium product before any insight; thesis arrives at p17
62
closing
Digital Auto Report 2023
“A well-titled, MECE-structured analytical report with strong action titles in the data section, but it front-loads 16 slides of consumer evidence and compresses the strategic answer into a single recommendation slide — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar dividers, not for narrative arc.”
↓ p.5-20 is 16 consecutive analyze_data slides with no internal section divider — feels like a research dump preceding the strategic story
62
closing
Sovereign Debt Restructuring
“A competent policy-brief deck with one strong, repeated quantified insight, but it buries the thesis behind heavy front matter and topic-label timelines - useful as a teaching example for repeated-stat reinforcement and case-comparator structure, not for opening or MECE pillaring.”
↓ Front matter consumes 21% of the deck (pp.1-3 cover/disclaimer/TOC) before any insight lands
62
closing
From resilience to reinvention
“A competent, correctly-shaped CEO-survey deck with the right SCQA bones but topic-label titles and a soft close — useful as a structural template, not as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title writing.”
↓ Titles are mostly nouns ('Outlook', 'Sustainability', 'Impact of AI') instead of insight-bearing action titles
62
closing
Embracing the Loyalty Equation
“A well-researched Accenture POV with a strong central framework but a soft opening, repeated titles, and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of framework-anchored analysis, not of Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Duplicate generic action titles: 'The way forward' appears on both p.17 and p.21, signaling the recommendation section was not sharpened
62
closing
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
62
closing
From Lead to Cash Simplify and Scale with Revenue Ops
“A competently structured RevOps point-of-view with a clean MECE spine but topic-label titles and a buried recommendation — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are dominated by topic nouns ('People', 'Process', 'Technology', 'Recommendations', 'Conclusion') instead of declarative insights
62
closing
Hydrogen: Closing the cost gap
“A solid analytical McKinsey build with strong quantified titles and a clean three-bucket MECE, but it buries its named framework and lets the recommendation drift into the appendix - use pp. 10-13 as a teaching example for analytical staircases, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide p. 19 reverts to a vague topic-style title and lacks a crisp recommendation or next-step CTA
62
closing
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title
62
closing
2022 consumer community banking investor day
“A disciplined, well-anchored investor-day portfolio review with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft and section navigation, but not for end-to-end SCQA narrative because it lacks a Complication and a synthesis close.”
↓ No Complication act: 106 pages without a single slide framing a real threat, gap, or 'what we got wrong' — the macro/credit slide at p.54 ('rapidly changing macro environment') is the closest, but it is immediately neutralised rather than developed into tension.
62
closing
csg investor day 2016 sru
“A competent investor-day progress report with several strong metric-led titles, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar — it lacks SCQA setup and pillar structure, so use individual action titles (p4, p8, p11) as teaching examples rather than the deck's architecture.”
↓ No Situation/Complication setup — the deck never explicitly frames why the SRU story matters before diving into metrics
60
closing
Level Up: Elevate Your Business With a Platform Strategy
“A competently-structured thought-leadership deck with strong data-backed titles in the middle but a soft open and a closing that trails into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 2.1 pp margin advantage (p.3 callout) should be slide 1's headline, not a sub-bullet behind a definition
60
closing
Re-focus your talent lens: Abundance awaits
“Solid thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar MECE spine and strong number-bearing action titles, but it ends on reflective questions instead of a concrete call to action - use it as an exemplar of SCQA setup and pillar structure, not of closing.”
↓ Ending is soft - p.33 'Unlocking future growth' poses questions and p.34 'Closing thoughts' offers 'three questions for immediate contemplation' instead of a concrete CTA or engagement offer
60
closing
The age of AI: Banking’s new reality
“A textbook-MECE consulting report with disciplined pillar structure and good evidence, but action titles default to topic labels and the close fades — use the section architecture as a teaching example, not the title-writing or the landing.”
↓ Action titles often duplicate section names ('Lead with value' x3, 'Close the gap on responsible AI' x2) — the deck tells you the topic but not the insight
60
closing
Deloitte 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world
“A well-architected research-trends deck with genuine MECE pillars and dense data, but it teaches as a framework lookbook rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its section structure as a model and its title writing as a counter-example.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels reused across 2-3 consecutive slides (e.g., 'Negotiating worker data' p.21-23, 'Activating the future of workplace' p.17-19) — readers can't skim the deck
60
closing
EY Work Reimagined 2022 Survey
“A competently sequenced survey-findings deck with strong analytical action titles but a weak recommendation and synthesis - use the middle (p.5-p.10) as a teaching example of title-writing, not the opening or close.”
↓ Recommendation slide p.11 is phrased as a question instead of a declarative ask, diluting the punch of the deck's 'so what'
60
closing
How nine digital frontrunners can lead on AI in Europe
“A well-sectioned McKinsey research report with solid quantification and a real recommendations chapter, but the thesis is buried behind a long definitional setup and the argument dissolves into a 14-page bibliography -- use it to teach sizing and sector deep-dives, not as an exemplar of opening or close.”
↓ Thesis is buried: the real 'answer' slide (p.20 'The nine digital frontrunners could play a leading role in Europe') sits 19 pages in, behind a 10-slide 'What is AI' definitional wade.
60
closing
USPS Envisioning Americas Future Postal
“A textbook McKinsey diagnosis deck with a strong quantified middle but a buried thesis and a stakeholder-cautious close — use p.4-15 as a teaching example for analytical buildup, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried answer — the headline number ($238B loss, $15B residual gap) doesn't land until p.13-18, so the first third reads as analytical buildup rather than a thesis-led deck
60
closing
Going full circle
“A competent research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a coherent diagnostic spine, but the thin opening and single-slide resolution make it a good teaching example for title craft and tension-building, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Opening is methodology-heavy: p.3 'Sample size by country' belongs in an appendix, not slide 3 of a 15-page argument.
60
closing
Blurred lines FinTech 2016
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and disciplined 'so what?' moments, but it leans analytical-heavy and fizzles at the close — useful as a teaching example for answer-first openings and rhetorical titles, less so as a model of resolution.”
↓ Closing is anticlimactic — p.29 'Conclusion' is a generic label and there is no explicit recommendation or action slide before the appendix dump
60
closing
Five global shifts megatrends
“A well-organized PwC point-of-view survey with disciplined parallel pillars but a buried thesis, recycled titles, and no call to action — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five identical 'Possible implications…' titles (p.6/10/14/18/22) — pure topic labels that waste the most-read line on every other slide
60
closing
2024 TransAct Middle East
“Competent PwC market-update with a clear thesis on the cover and two genuinely insightful theme titles, but most analytical slides default to chart-label titles and the deck skips the Complication act — use pp.14-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Four chart slides (p.4, p.6, p.9, p.18) reuse near-identical 'Deal Volume FY-2021 to FY-2023' chart-label titles instead of stating what the chart proves.
60
closing
FinTechs in Europe – Challenger and Partner
“A well-structured Roland Berger survey deck with a thesis-first opening and disciplined action titles, but back-loaded recommendations make it a strong exemplar for analytical build-up and pillar structure rather than for resolution.”
↓ Resolution is thin: only p.34-35 carry the 'fields of action' — a single recommendation slide for 30 slides of build-up
60
closing
The Lithium-Ion (EV) battery market and supply chain
“Strong analytical mid-section with quantified, declarative titles, but bookended by a thesis-less opening and a triple-takeaway close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — first 5 pages establish context but never preview the answer or stakes