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
726 matching · page 1 / 31
80
narrative
The future of demand
“A well-structured thought-leadership deck with a clean SCQA arc and answer-first exec summary — strong Storymakers exemplar for opening/closing discipline, but the overlapping middle dividers make it a flawed template for teaching MECE pillar design.”
↓ Two middle dividers (p.6 and p.8) cover overlapping territory about customer-industry sustainability — breaks MECE
80
narrative
Banking Consumer Study 2025
“A genuinely strong Storymakers exemplar for pillar architecture and imperative recommendation titles, weakened only by a soft, metaphor-led opening and figure pages that hide their insight in the caption.”
↓ Opening is soft: cover is metaphorical (p.1), TOC + methodology occupy p.2–3, and there is no answer-first slide stating the recommendation before the build-up begins.
78
narrative
Understanding the path to digital marketing maturity
“Solid mid-tier exemplar of a research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a complete arc, but buries its sharpest insight on p.7 — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, less so for opening-hook craft.”
↓ Lead is buried: the punchy '2% are mature' insight sits on p.7 instead of p.2 or p.3 where it would set the tension
78
narrative
Roland Berger Construction Radar – Impacts on DACH region
“Tight, answer-first scenario-planning deck with strong analytical spine but a thin recommendation tail — use p.2 and p.5-9 as Storymakers exemplars for executive summaries and quantified action titles, not for the closing arc.”
↓ Recommendation compressed into a single slide (p.11) with a generic callout — disproportionate to the 4-slide analytical build-up
78
narrative
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
78
narrative
Refueling Innovation Engine Vaccines
“A textbook McKinsey diagnostic deck with a clean SCQA arc and strong action titles, but it stops one slide short of a committed recommendation — use pp.16-25 as a teaching example of narrative pivoting, not the closing.”
↓ Resolution act is tentative — 'Initial thoughts' (p.30) and 'Questions for discussion' (p.32) abdicate the recommendation
78
narrative
Poverty Empowerment India
“Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.”
↓ p.14 'BACK UP' divider sits in the middle of the recommendation arc, not at the end — it fragments the resolution act
78
narrative
Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound
“A tight, well-opened McKinsey 'point of view' mini-deck with insight-bearing titles and a clear value-at-stake hook, but the closing recommendation is buried in a run-on title - use the opening and metric-per-slide discipline as a teaching example, not the close.”
↓ Closing slide (p.8) action title is a 36-word run-on, not a directive; weakens the call to action
78
narrative
Women @ Work 2022: A Global Outlook
“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.”
↓ Opening buries the answer across a letter and two 'Executive summary'-titled pages (p.2–4) instead of one thesis slide
78
narrative
The Canadian Venture Opportunity
“A well-structured three-act BCG thought-leadership report with strong action titles in the diagnosis — use the p.13-18 benchmarking sequence as a teaching example, but flag the thin recommendation act and slow open as what Storymakers would fix.”
↓ Front-matter drag: 4 slides (cover, author note, agenda, quote collage) before the thesis appears on p.6 — buries the lede
78
narrative
Unlocking alpha in deals
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a clean SCQA arc and MECE three-pillar spine — use the divider structure and analytical action titles as a teaching example, but flag the repeated 'Call to action' titles and missing operational close as the lessons in what to fix.”
↓ Three slides (p.18, p.22, p.26) all titled 'Call to action' — a topic label repeated verbatim, the opposite of action titling
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
78
narrative
Make the leap, take the lead: Tech strategies for innovation and growth
“A well-architected analytical thought-leadership deck with a strong MECE pillar (Replatform/Reframe/Reach) and quantified narrative — use it as a teaching example for pillar design and action-titling, but not for opening hook or closing CTA.”
↓ The headline insight (5x growth gap) is buried until p.6 — the cover (p.1) and opening context (p.2) waste the highest-attention real estate.
78
narrative
Green by Default
“Well-structured Accenture thought-leadership report with clear MECE pillars and several sharp action titles — use the sectioning (p.15/20/25) and insight-title examples (p.4, p.5, p.10) as teaching exemplars, but flag the repeated generic recommendation titles and soft closing as common pitfalls to avoid.”
↓ Three identical generic titles 'Practical considerations to help your business make a start' on p.19, p.24, p.29 — insight-free and undifferentiated
78
narrative
FULL VALUE. FULL STOP How to scale innovation and achieve full value with Future Systems
“A well-structured analytical benchmark report with a clear Think→Act→Move spine and evidence-rich recommendation titles — use the numbered 'Act Like' section (p.17-22) as a Storymakers teaching example, but treat the opening and the soft p.26 close as cautionary tales of burying the stakes and under-specifying the call to action.”
↓ The thesis surfaces on p.3-4 but the single most provocative stat (46% revenue at risk) is held until p.25 instead of headlining the opening
78
narrative
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding
78
narrative
AUTOMOTIVE –OES
“Competent Accenture research report with a legible SCQA spine and strong quantified titles, but the recommendation act is under-built relative to the diagnosis — use the opening (p.2-4) and transitions (p.19, p.22) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the resolution.”
↓ The 'four best practices' resolution (p.20-21) is compressed — practices 1-2 barely visible, 3-4 share one slide
76
narrative
Creating the best SME Debt finance ecosystem
“A structurally exemplary three-act consulting deck with strong diagnostic action titles, but it hedges its recommendations and wastes its executive summary headers — use Section 1 as the teaching example for action-titled diagnosis, not the closing as a recommendation template.”
↓ Executive summary slides 4-8 use pagination titles ('EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1/5…5/5') instead of carrying the five claims they contain — the most expensive real estate in the deck wasted
76
narrative
US consumers send mixed signals in an uncertain economy
“Tight, well-titled McKinsey insight brief with a real recommendation at the end — use the action titles and SCQA closure as a teaching example, but flag the missing pillar structure and the unflagged trade-down/splurge paradox as the gaps.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — pp.3-9 read as a topic dump rather than grouped pillars (sentiment / spending / channel)
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
76
narrative
Fast-moving consumer goods: Driving value creation in an era of disruption
“A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Diagnosis act is only ~3 slides (p.5-7) before pivoting to recommendations on p.9, leaving the 'why these 5 imperatives' logic underbuilt
76
narrative
April Macro Brief: Special edition Tariff distress
“A strong analytical brief with insight-bearing titles and clean MECE spine, but the recommendation is compressed and generic - use the tariff analysis (p.12-19, p.22-25, p.36) as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not the resolution arc.”
↓ Recommendation is compressed into p.38-40 and reads as bolt-on consulting boilerplate ('resiliency', 'scenario planning', 'productivity') rather than tariff-specific moves earned by the preceding 30 slides of analysis
76
narrative
Thought you knew the Scope 3 issues in your supply chain? Think again.
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with a strong hook and a clean five-action closer, but its analytical middle leans on figure-label titles and its conclusion softens the punch - useful as a teaching example for SCQA pacing and imperative recommendation blocks, not for action-title discipline.”
↓ Figure/Table slides (p.9, p.10, p.12, p.13, p.17) use chart-label titles ('Figure 1: Distribution of upstream emissions by supplier tier') instead of action titles stating what the data proves
76
narrative
The Hidden Value of Culture Makers
“A well-crafted thought-leadership narrative with a strong opening and a memorable proprietary framework, but it trails off into case studies and a soft CTA instead of landing a prescriptive recommendation — use the opening and quantified-stakes sections as teaching examples, not the closing.”
↓ Conclusion slide (p.22) titled 'In conclusion' — textbook topic-label anti-pattern in a deck that otherwise uses action titles