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
635 matching · page 11 / 27
62
narrative
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
62
narrative
Global Pricing Study 2011
“A short research-summary teaser with strong headline-title discipline on its analytical slides but no recommendation and a self-promotional close — useful as an exemplar of insight titles, not of full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.9 with a firm-credentials slide ('No. 1 in marketing and sales in Germany')
62
narrative
Global Automotive Study 2023
“A well-titled, evidence-rich research-report deck whose per-slide craft is exemplary but whose overall arc is a parallel-themed survey rather than a Storymakers SCQA build — use the action titles and per-section 'How to act?' pattern as teaching examples, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — pages 1-5 are admin/methodology before the first insight on p.6
62
narrative
When will the knot finally unravel?
“A competent short market-update deck with disciplined quantified titles and a consistent thesis line, but it stops at outlook and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for full S-C-Q-A arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7's outlook is the de facto close, followed by filler (p.8) and front-matter (p.9)
62
narrative
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
62
narrative
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
62
narrative
The Lithium-Ion (EV) battery market and supply chain
“Strong analytical mid-section with quantified, declarative titles, but bookended by a thesis-less opening and a triple-takeaway close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — first 5 pages establish context but never preview the answer or stakes
62
narrative
Roland Berger views on H2 market development
“A competent Roland Berger market-sizing study with strong action titles and clean MECE structure, but it is a reference document not a Storymakers exemplar — use the title-writing on p.11–18 as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No executive summary or BLUF — the EUR 10bn headline is buried on p.7 and never restated as a thesis
62
narrative
Polish Digital Index
“A competently structured benchmark study with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it skips the upfront thesis and ends in a credentials pitch — use pp.12-18 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: the 'A. Synthesis' divider (p.3) is followed by a study-description (p.4) rather than a one-sentence answer to 'so what'
62
narrative
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
62
narrative
Project Management: Improving performance, reducing risk
“A competently-structured awareness deck for a board audience that uses question-based section dividers well but reads as a topic walkthrough rather than an argument — useful as a teaching example of how clear section spines do not by themselves produce a Storymakers narrative when action titles and a synthesized close are missing.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the thesis is delayed until p.10 and never restated as a single declarative claim
62
narrative
Overview of the ASEAN-6 Automotive Market
“A disciplined market-atlas briefing with strong action titles and a front-loaded thesis, but it dissolves into a country tour and never closes the loop - useful as an exemplar of parallel country-profile structure and metric-led titles, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five case-study slides (p17, 21, 25, 29, 33) share a verbatim generic title - pure topic dump with no per-country insight
62
narrative
Crossing the lines Fintech
“A competent analytical-comparison deck with strong data callouts but a label-heavy opening, a flabby triple 'Steps to take' middle, and a soft 'Conclusion' close — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Three identical 'Steps to take' titles (p.16, p.19, p.21) — no differentiation, no numbering, no recommendation specificity; reader cannot tell the pillars apart
62
narrative
CEO Panel Survey Emerge Stronger
“A competent survey-readout deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation slide, but the placeholder titles and thin close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.3/p.4/p.7 as title-writing teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Four slides (p.5, 6, 10, 12) carry the placeholder title 'CEO Panel Survey | n' — wasted real estate where an action title should live
62
narrative
AI in Retail
“Solid analytical research report with strong insight-bearing titles in the middle, but it opens slowly with five front-matter pages and ends in team bios — use p.11-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Five slides of front-matter (cover, blank, disclaimer, three 'About us') before the thesis appears at p.10 — answer is buried
62
narrative
2nd Global Crypto M&A and Fundraising Report
“A well-structured PwC industry report with a strong BLUF and MECE pillars but topic-labeled chart titles and a marketing-pitch close — useful as a teaching example for opening discipline and section structure, not for action-title craft or narrative resolution.”
↓ Action titles abandoned in the analytical body — p.7-21 default to topic labels like 'Crypto Fundraising Deal Count by Sector'
62
narrative
2024 TransAct Middle East
“A competent annual M&A landscape report with sound MECE pillars and a strong cover thesis, but it functions as a reference scan rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.1, p.8, and p.12 as positive title examples and the rest of the body as a cautionary case for chart-caption titles.”
↓ Most sector pages (p.14-20) use bare colon-terminated topic labels ('Consumer markets:', 'Healthcare:') instead of insights, hiding the 'so what' from a skim reader
62
narrative
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
62
narrative
Generative AI Making Waves
“A well-structured analytical taxonomy with a memorable proprietary framework (WaveGram), but topic-label titles and a soft open/close make it a teaching example for framework design and MECE decomposition — not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly nouns/labels (p.20, p.26, p.28–34, p.43–49) — the deck reads as taxonomy, not argument
62
narrative
Digital CFO Results of the Oliver Wyman Study
“A competently chaptered survey readout with above-average action titles, but it presents findings rather than telling a story — useful as a teaching example for declarative metric-led titles, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening: it takes until p.8 to surface a real finding; pp.1–7 are all setup
62
narrative
full report 1651767473 1215260173
“A solid analytical industry report with credible numbers and case studies, but structurally a four-pillar topic loop rather than a Storymakers narrative — usable as an example of metric-driven action titles, not as a model of arc, opening, or closing.”
↓ Four slides titled identically 'Key recommendations for marketers' (p.13, 17, 24, 29) — readers cannot tell pillars apart from the title alone
62
narrative
ey global economic outlook july 2023
“A polished, title-driven analytical brief with exemplary action titles and a clean thesis-first open - use it as a teaching example for title craft, but not for narrative arc, since it dissolves into a contributor bio instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation - the deck ends on a regional slide (p30 Africa) and a contributor bio (p32) instead of a 'what this means for you' slide
62
narrative
ey gender pay gap 03 03 2025
“A short compliance-style ESG report with decent data callouts but weak Storymakers craft — useful as a counter-example for action-title rewriting, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — p.3 'Our gender pay gaps' should read 'Pay gap widened 0.2pp to 14.8%, driven by part-time concentration'
62
narrative
ey e book the green transition
“A competently structured EY thought-leadership trilogy with clean MECE pillars and quantified analysis, but it reads as three parallel essays with a topic-labelled opening and a slide literally titled 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for sectional build-up and recommendation slides, not for answer-first narrative or memorable closes.”
↓ No answer-first opening: the executive summary at p2 ('Addressing the climate crisis and accelerating the green transition') is a topic restatement, not a thesis — readers must wait to p5 for the first real claim