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
19 matching
78
narrative
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
76
narrative
Southeast Asia's Green Economy
“A disciplined, MECE-structured co-branded report with a clean S-C-A-R spine and unusually tight quantitative reconciliation — use its chapter skeleton and exec-summary sequencing as a teaching example, but not its opening (13 pages of forewords before the thesis) or its appendix-style country section.”
↓ Opening buried behind 13 pages of sponsor forewords (p.9-13) — the thesis on p.16 should be on p.1 or p.8
72
narrative
10th Operations Efficiency Radar
“A solid, MECE-structured analytical study with above-average action titles in its core, but it opens with a three-part summary instead of a single thesis and closes with marketing rather than a CTA — use the analytical middle (p.14-26) as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Recommendation is buried — p.27 lands the call to action, but six more pages of framework/methodology/contacts follow, draining momentum
72
narrative
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
72
narrative
Hyper-disruption demands constant reinvention
“A well-scaffolded analytical report with a legible S-C-R arc and mostly declarative titles, but it buries the ask in a sprawling sub-pillar-less recommendation act and ends with summary rather than CTA — use the opening framing and data-forward titling as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Seven slides use the 'A quick take on...' construction (p.9, p.11, p.24, p.26, p.30, p.32, p.33), a topic-label pattern that undercuts the otherwise declarative title standard
68
narrative
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
68
narrative
Outlook on the automotive software and electronics market through 2030
“A competent McKinsey market-outlook brief with strong action titles and an answer-first opener, but it lacks tension and a concrete recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.9 closes with a generic 'Conclusion' topic label and an exhortation rather than a prioritized recommendation or next-step list
68
narrative
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
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
58
narrative
Education: 2021 Deal Round-up and Trends to Watch Out For in 2022
“A competent analytical data round-up with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it is a briefing not a story — missing thesis, missing synthesis, and ending on a contact card instead of a recommendation; use slides 2, 4, 10, 13 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.15 data + p.16 'Connect with us' — there is no recommendation, no 'what to watch in 2022' payoff despite the title promising it
58
narrative
The Hotel Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent, well-chaptered Deloitte market-handbook that reads as analytical reference rather than persuasive story — use it as an example of MECE sectioning and hero-metric callouts, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or answer-first slide in the opening five — reader gets momentum stats but no argument
55
narrative
4th edition eReadiness 2023
“A strong research-report exemplar with disciplined action titles and clean MECE segmentation, but a weak Storymakers arc — buries a 2-slide recommendation at the end of 70 pages of analysis; use the analytical title-writing as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendations compressed to just 2 of 83 slides (pp.79-80) and both carry the identical generic title — the 'so what' is essentially unwritten
55
narrative
morgan stanley virtual hk summit march 2022
“A standard Macquarie investor-relations template with a clean section spine and a handful of strong declarative titles, but no SCQA arc, a buried thesis, and a 26-slide appendix tail — useful as a teaching example of IR structure and of how 'topic labels vs. action titles' diverges, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opens cover→disclaimer→agenda→divider→'at a glance', burying the 'why own us' answer
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'
55
narrative
2022 Global Alternative Fund Survey
“A competently-titled survey report that delivers data point-by-point but has no opening thesis and no closing recommendation — useful as a benchmark for action-title craft on individual pages, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — the deck ends at p.48 on an ESG data point and cuts to contacts, violating the R in SCQA/S→C→A→R
48
narrative
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'.
48
narrative
Accelerating Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
“A pillar-organized ESG disclosure report with strong client-case storytelling but weak title discipline and no narrative resolution — useful as a teaching example for case-study slide construction (p.21–30) and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers exemplar of the full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels ('Our approach' p.34, 'Development' p.36, 'Our people' repeated as title on p.37 and p.42) — readers cannot skim titles and reconstruct the argument
45
narrative
The Swiss FoodTech Ecosystem 2021
“A well-researched ecosystem atlas masquerading as a deck — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks thesis, tension, and recommendation; teach it as a cautionary case for landscape reports that forget to make an argument.”
↓ No recommendation or call to action anywhere — the deck is a landscape map with no 'so what.'
42
narrative
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide