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 59.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
30 matching · page 1 / 2
74
narrative
A WORLD FOR TRAVEL NIMES SUMMIT
“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.”
↓ Opening buries the answer — five context slides (pp.4-8) before the travel-specific complication on p.9, and the 'five commitments' promise only surfaces on p.12
74
narrative
ey eurelectric flexibility study 2025 20250306
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership report with strong data anchors and a real chapter arc, but it front-loads its argument into a 7-page exec summary and recycles chapter names as slide titles — use Chapter 5 (p39–40) and the quote slides as Storymakers exemplars, but treat the title craft and CTA as cautionary cases.”
↓ Multiple slides reuse the chapter divider as their own action title (p12 and p15 both titled 'Why flexibility matters and how much is enough'; p33 and p34 both titled 'What it takes to unlock flexibility potential') — squandering the headline real estate
72
narrative
EY Ireland FS Research Report
“A structurally disciplined research report with clean MECE pillars and a repeatable evidence→recommendation pattern — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for STRUCTURE and pillar consistency, but not for action titling or closing punch.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly topic labels — repeating '5.1 Technological Infrastructure & Innovation' verbatim across pp.13/14/15 wastes the most valuable real estate on the page
72
narrative
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
72
narrative
Blueprint for Service Success
“A competently structured consulting deck with a real S-C-A-R arc and a strong segmentation frame, but weakened by topic-label titles and a buried thesis — use its segmentation and roadmap slides as teaching examples, not its opening or titling.”
↓ Titles frequently fall back to figure labels ('Figure 1a', 'Figure 2c', 'Figure 5') instead of stating the insight the figure proves
70
narrative
Future of Sales Marketing Executive Perspectives
“Solid BCG executive-perspectives piece with excellent imperative-led action titles and a clean recommendation block, but the 10-slide context run-up, absent MECE dividers, and whimpering close-into-appendix make it a better teaching example for title craft than for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ 10 slides of context (p2-11) before the pivot at p12 — too long a setup for a 22-page executive perspective
68
narrative
ASEAN Growth and Scale Talent Playbook
“A well-pillared analytical playbook with strong data-driven action titles, but it buries its thesis under 11 pages of forewords and ends without a recommendation — use the middle (pp.13-30 diagnosis, pp.31-67 MECE pillars) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the framing.”
↓ 11 slides of front matter (pp.1-11) with five forewords delays the thesis past any executive's attention budget
68
narrative
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements
68
narrative
2019 ccb investor day ba56d0e8
“A textbook investor-day deck with consultant-grade action titles and clean MECE business-line pillars, but reassurance-mode narrative and a generic closing — use the Home Lending section (pp.21-30) as the SCQA exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Closing slide p.48 ('We remain focused on executing against our strategy') is generic — no concrete asks, financial commitments, or 2020 milestones
68
narrative
Ipsos Public Trust in AI
“Solid analytical public-opinion deck with respectable action titles and a clean pillar structure, but it reads as a research readout rather than a recommendation-led Storymakers exemplar — use the mid-deck insight titles as a teaching reference, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Duplicate title 'Challenges and opportunities for employers' on p.20 and p.21 signals a topic-dump rather than a built argument
68
narrative
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“Well-architected four-pillar consulting report with a strong SCQA opening but no closing synthesis — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar structure and tension-framing, not for resolution or action-titling discipline.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on a GPS case study (p.43) then jumps to acknowledgments; the four-action framework is never recapped or converted into a call to action
68
narrative
Accenture Tech Vision 2025
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE pillars and strong evidence cadence, but it buries its insights in generic section labels and fades into an appendix instead of landing a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for pillar architecture, not for action titling or closing.”
↓ Duplicated titles ('The Big Picture', 'The Technology', 'What's Next', 'A Portrait of the Future') recur in every section, making the deck unscannable and forcing readers to rely on callouts
64
narrative
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“A solid BCG operating-model diagnostic with disciplined quantification and peer benchmarks, but it reads as a dense board-report archive rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its diagnosis→recommendation pairing within function sections as a teaching pattern, not its overall opening or closing.”
↓ The recommendation is buried: 22 pages of preamble (team bios on p.13, $5M BCG self-investment on p.8, project phases on p.6) precede the first substantive finding at p.23
62
narrative
Private financing of rolling stock
“A well-structured analytical study with strong MECE pillars and metric-rich titles, but it reads as a research report rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide in the opening — the answer is delayed until p.8
62
narrative
Chilean Hydrogen Pathway
“Competent analytical build with strong title-writing in the Chile-business-case core, but it buries its 25 GW recommendation mid-deck and ends in a numbered initiative dump - useful as a teaching example for data-bearing action titles, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide in the first 5 pages; the thesis (slide 46) lands at ~70% depth
62
narrative
Infrastructure beyond COVID-19
“A well-titled, metric-rich sectoral reference document whose analytical sections would make a strong Storymakers teaching example for action titles and mini-arcs — but it fails as an argument because it ends on 'Future directions: Waste' instead of a unified national recommendation.”
↓ No overall closing synthesis — the deck terminates on 'Future directions: Waste' (p.187) then a disclaimer, burying the national recommendation that p.6-7 promised
62
narrative
IBV Smarter Workforce Institute
“A competent IBV thought-leadership deck with a real recommendation (FORT) at the end, but the repeated topic-label titles and bloated context section make it a teaching example for naming discipline, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ The same title 'Amplifying employee voice' is reused on p.1, 4, 6, 8, and 22 — wastes the most valuable real estate on the slide
62
narrative
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer
62
narrative
Climate Change: BCG’s Perspectives and Offerings
“An analytically strong, well-titled educational deck with a clean three-act spine that buries its own punchline - use p.17-p.25 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, but not as a structural exemplar because the promised 'Offerings' never land.”
↓ No answer-first slide - the thesis doesn't crystallize until p.7, and even then it's a problem statement not a recommendation
60
narrative
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
58
narrative
AADA Quadfecta Services for the Generative Enterprise™, 2024
“A competent analyst-report template with strong quantitative mid-section but weak Storymakers structure - useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide titles (pp. 17-19), not for narrative arc or closings.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action - the deck ends on a vendor profile (p.28) and an 'About HFS' page (p.31), so the buyer is left without a 'what to do Monday morning'
58
narrative
People&ClimateChange2025
“A competently reported syndicated-research deck with flashes of strong action-title writing but a buried recommendation and a 40-slide country-data tail — use the p.9/p.15/p.26 insights as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is buried: the only prescriptive slide (p.25 'Three things to bring consumers along') sits mid-deck with no visual weight or escalation
55
narrative
The Next Gen Index Millennials and Gen Z in the US
“A data-driven trend report with strong metric-anchored titles but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title hygiene, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — closes on a context slide (p.17) that restates a generic premise instead of resolving
55
narrative
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
“A meticulous Kearney FactBook with strong action titles and MECE pillars but no narrative resolution - use slides 4, 14, 17 and 50 as exemplars of declarative titling, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers archetype.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide - the deck ends on patent counts (p.147-148) and a list of active companies (p.149) rather than 'what should the reader do'