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 11 / 46
68
narrative
Automotive metal components for car bodies and chassis
“Competent Roland Berger market-study deck with clean MECE pillars and disciplined action titles in the analytical body - useful as a teaching example of trend-driven sizing, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it labels its executive summary, buries its punchline, and closes with firm marketing instead of a recommendation.”
↓ The most important number in the deck (EUR 15 bn hot-stamping by 2025) is buried in p.34's callout under a label title 'Implications and key takeaways' - should be the title
68
narrative
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry-research report with answer-first openings and quantified action titles on the analytics, but the recommendations and close are weak — use slides 7, 8, and 12 as Storymakers exemplars of declarative titling, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.14, p.15) carry the section-divider label as their action title, hiding the actual insight
68
narrative
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competent PwC barometer report with a clean numbered structure and strong evidence, but it reads as an analytical briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of declarative M&A action titles (p.9–11), not as a model of opening hooks or closing calls to action.”
↓ Opening (p.1–4) wastes four pages on cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider before any thesis appears, and the Summary on p.5 is labelled 'Summary' instead of stating the answer
68
narrative
Time to talk: What has to change for women at work
“A well-researched, pillar-structured PwC thought-leadership report whose evidence and callouts are strong but whose titles are topic labels and whose recommendation is a slogan — useful as a teaching example of MECE pillars and quotable data callouts, not of action titling or closing discipline.”
↓ Action titles are mostly nouns repeated across multiple slides — 'Transparency and trust' on p.8-11 and 'Strategic support' on p.12/15 — so a reader skimming titles cannot reconstruct the argument
68
narrative
Talent trends 2020 Upskilling: Building confidence in an uncertain world Findings from PwC’s 23rd Annual Global CEO Surv
“A PwC thought-leadership PDF with a recognizable narrative spine and a few genuinely strong action titles, but it dilutes its own argument with topic-label sub-sections and a soft, generic recommendation — useful as a teaching example for the p11/p14 titles and the 'More talk than action' tension move, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Numbered challenge slides p15-p18 collapse to topic labels ('What skills to teach', 'Paying for it') instead of carrying the insight in the title
68
narrative
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
68
narrative
PwC's 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey
“A well-signposted research-survey deck with strong action titles in its analytical core but a missing resolution act — use pillars 1–3 as a teaching example for MECE structure and action-title discipline, not the closing.”
↓ ~10 slides reuse the report name '22nd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the slide title (p.9, 11, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 37, 42), abdicating the action-title discipline
68
narrative
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“Competent short-form macro outlook with a textbook arc and two model action titles, but it buries the lead and asks rather than answers in the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for p.6-style titles, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening 3 slides (cover, outline, dashboard) bury the lead — no thesis stated in the first 5 pages
68
narrative
Navigating uncertainty: PwC’s annual global Working Capital Study
“A competently structured PwC thought-leadership report with strong quantified stakes and clean section architecture, but topic-label titles and a soft service-pitch close keep it firmly in the 'analytical report' lane rather than the Storymakers exemplar tier.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic nouns or 'Figure X:' captions — the deck reads like a report TOC, not a story
68
narrative
Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up
“A well-architected survey-report-as-deck with disciplined sectioning and a memorable Compliance Pioneer payoff, but action titles default to topic labels and the close substitutes metaphor for a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for repeating per-pillar 'Actions' beats, not for headline writing.”
↓ Action titles overwhelmingly topic labels (e.g. p.11 'Negative impacts of increased complexity', p.17 'A different way', p.34 'Culture of compliance') — the insights live in callouts, not headlines
68
narrative
Insurance reimagined 2025
“Competent thought-leadership white paper with a real arc and parallel recommendations, but it buries the answer and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for the imperatives section (p.18-23), not for opening craft.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Where are we now?' (p.4-6) and a duplicate 'Five trends affecting the future of insurance' (p.7 and p.13) signal recycled topic labels rather than insight titles
68
narrative
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
68
narrative
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
68
narrative
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
Elevating internal audit’s role: The digitally fitfunction 2019 State of the Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar build and disciplined 'Dynamics' protagonist framing, but soft stakes, a delayed thesis, and quote-slide padding keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and protagonist framing, not for narrative tension or BLUF openings.”
↓ Soft complication — no slide quantifies the cost of being non-Dynamic (the 81% who aren't), so stakes never sharpen
68
narrative
Customers in spotlight FinTech banking
“A competent industry-trends brief with a strong opening hook and credible data, but the recommendation act is a single slide — useful as an example of leading with the answer, weaker as a model of MECE pillars or a built-out resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act is one slide deep (p.9) — the 'win-win partnership' thesis on p.8 deserves its own build of how/who/when, not a single conclusion paragraph
68
narrative
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
68
narrative
AFF 2023 HKTDC and PwC’s Joint Pulse Survey
“A competently structured survey-readout deck with strong data-bearing action titles but a weak opening and label-style dividers — useful as an example of slide-level action titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening hook or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening is wasted: cover → generic 'Introduction' (p.2) → topic divider (p.3); the thesis is never stated up front
68
narrative
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
68
narrative
2025 Nigeria Budget and Economic Outlook
“A diligent, metric-rich PwC market outlook with strong declarative titles and a real recommendation arc, but it buries its thesis behind 10 pages of context and lets seven identically-titled pillar dividers obscure an otherwise MECE structure — use individual analytical pages (p.10, p.18, p.86) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck-level architecture.”
↓ Seven pillar dividers are titled identically ('Key issues for consideration in 2025', p.12/21/31/39/47/58/64), erasing MECE legibility for a skim reader
68
narrative
2019 Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear protagonist (Dynamics) and largely declarative titles, but the soft complication, over-reliance on quote slides, and uneven pillar signposting make it a useful exemplar for action-title craft — not for full Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Heavy reliance on quote_slides (p.3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20 — seven of 22 pages) substitutes voice-of-expert for analytical synthesis
68
narrative
CO2 Emissions Report
“A solid analytical benchmark report with a strong opening thesis and quantified stakes, undermined by a near-total absence of slide-level action titles and a flat 'Get in touch' close — useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline and OEM-benchmark structure, but a cautionary case for title craft.”
↓ Title repetition: ~75% of slides recycle the report tagline as the action title, forcing insight into callouts and breaking the Storymakers principle of 'read the titles, get the story'
68
narrative
Breakthrough Brigade Innovation Growth
“A solid thought-leadership report with a real MECE recommendations spine, but its brand-heavy opening, descriptive figure titles, and toothless 'Summary' close make it a useful teaching example for analytical pillar structure rather than for Storymakers-grade hook-and-payoff narrative.”
↓ Five front-matter slides (pp.1-5) including duplicate 'Our thought leadership' dividers delay the thesis to p.7