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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on narrative
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A textbook Roland Berger thought-leadership deck with excellent action titles and a clean SCQA arc — use the title craft and stakes-first opening as exemplars, but flag the missing MECE dividers and the under-developed recommendation as the parts a Storymakers reader should not copy.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “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.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “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.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “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.” — McKinsey, 2010
- “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.” — McKinsey, 2016
- “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.” — McKinsey, 2014
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 10 / 46
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
PUBLIC TRUST IN AI: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND REGULATION
“A competent five-act research report with a clear spine and several genuinely declarative slide titles, but the soft opening, noun-phrase dividers, and principle-level closing keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use the risks/benefits section (p.11–14) as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns four slides on cover/intro/TOC/takeaways before any evidence (p.1–4); a Storymakers opener would collapse these and lead with the answer
68
narrative
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal
68
narrative
COVID-19: Briefing Note
“A textbook example of MECE pillar architecture (the 5 Horizons) wrapped around a weak opening label and a closing that trails into appendix dashboards — use it to teach framework structure and section dividers, not narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses: ends with regional KPI dashboards (p51-54) and References rather than a recommendation or so-what slide
68
narrative
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action
68
narrative
2022 ANNUAL RESULTS
“Disciplined earnings/investor deck with a clean MECE three-pillar build and mostly strong action titles; useful as a teaching example for opening-with-the-answer and title discipline, but not a Storymakers SCQA exemplar - it has no real complication and ends in a thank-you, not a takeaway.”
↓ Several financial slides default to topic-label titles ('REVENUE BREAKDOWN BY REGION' p.4, 'CHANGE IN OPERATING MARGIN' p.10, 'DEBT BY MATURITY' p.13) instead of stating what the chart proves
68
narrative
2020 Effie UK Report • In partnership withIpsos
“A competently structured industry-report deck with strong action titles and good evidence pairing, but it never leads with the answer and ends in a contact card — use its title craft and case-pairing rhythm as the teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis upfront: p.4 and p.40 are both labelled 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' but neither callout reveals a synthesised answer — the deck never tells you in one sentence what the 2020 effectiveness story is.
68
narrative
07 investorupdate2018 pc
“A competent investor-update deck with a thesis-up-front opening and quantified support, but flat pillar structure and several topic-label titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3-4 and the quantified callouts as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ Several pure topic-label titles — p.8 'Corporate & Institutional Clients', p.12 'Loan portfolio', p.19 'Financial targets', p.20 'Key messages' — squander the action-title slot
68
narrative
South Africa Economic Outlook 2024 Turning short-term crises into opportunities for business value creation and societal
“Solid thematic-essay deck with disciplined action titles but no closing synthesis — useful as a teaching example for sentence-style titles, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis or explicit call-to-action — p.10 is a contacts page, not a 'so what' slide
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
What if the eurozone were to enter a recession? Roland Berger Institute
“A tightly-written analytical brief with exemplary action titles but no explicit MECE dividers and no recommendation slide; use it as a teaching example for sentence-titles, not for full story-arc structure.”
↓ No section dividers — the four-mechanism MECE (investment, layoffs, consumption, government) is invisible without reading every title
68
narrative
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
68
narrative
Trend 2050 Economics and Business
“A high-quality analytical compendium with exemplary action-title craft and rigorous pillar logic, undermined by invisible section transitions and a sales-pitch closing — use pp6-83 as a teaching example for action titles, but not the opening or closing arc.”
↓ Closing pp85-87 is a generic three-part CTA ('Let's talk... 1/3, 2/3, 3/3') with identical 'Learn how Roland Berger can help' callouts — no concrete recommendations or implications synthesized
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 4 Climate change & ecosystem at risk
“A solid trend-research deck with strong numerate action titles in the middle, but it opens with throat-clearing and lands with generic recommendations — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for SCQA structure.”
↓ First 5 slides are meta-context about the Trend Compendium rather than a thesis or hook — no SCQA opening
68
narrative
Megatrend 2 Health & Care
“A well-titled, evidence-rich trend compendium with a clean SCQA setup and a real recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantitative callouts, but its 40-slide undivided analytical middle makes it a weak structural exemplar of MECE pillar architecture.”
↓ 40+ consecutive analyze_data / industry_trends slides (pp.12-54) with no breather, summary, or pillar divider — reads as a topic dump rather than a story
68
narrative
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
68
narrative
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
68
narrative
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
68
narrative
Bike Sharing 4.0
“A competent thought-leadership deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation, but the missing six-factor scaffolding and absent section dividers keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action-title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ The 'six factors' promised on p.3 are never explicitly enumerated or used as section dividers, so the analytical core (p.19-26) loses MECE clarity
68
narrative
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