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 12 / 27
62
narrative
IMD Morgan Stanley Final 13 June 2019
“Competent regional-bank investor deck with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it never states a Complication and ends in disclaimers — useful as an exemplar of pillar architecture and peer-benchmark evidence, not as a full SCQA narrative or strong close.”
↓ No Complication: deck shows strengths without naming a tension or risk, so there is nothing for the recommendation to resolve
62
narrative
20210628 Lanxess Presentation MS Cannon Ball Run Field Trip
“A solid IR earnings update with above-average action titles and a credible analytical spine, but the unlabeled dividers and absent recommendation make it a useful teaching example for segment-level action-titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles out via events calendar (p.31) and contacts (p.32)
62
narrative
Taking Action on Nature Webinar
“A solid analytical webinar deck with quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the thesis behind front-matter and ends in a tools reference + 'Thank you' instead of a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of declarative chart titles, not of full SCQA structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — closes on 'Thank you!' (p.15) after a tools dump
62
narrative
Secret of Transformations
“A solid McKinsey teaching/keynote deck with strong quantified evidence and a recognizable arc, but the interrogative titles, mid-deck survey detour, and missing recommendation make it a useful exemplar for analytical build-up — not for Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Survey for the audience' slides (p.8-13) interrupt the narrative and look like a workshop artifact, not a deck
62
narrative
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
62
narrative
New-business building in 2022: Driving growth in volatile times
“A well-quantified McKinsey survey readout with disciplined action titles but no resolution — use it as a teaching example for declarative numeric titles, not for narrative arc or closes.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on p.12 description, then acknowledgments (p.13)
62
narrative
MTA Financial Impact COVID-19
“A methodologically rigorous McKinsey forecast deck with strong precedent framing and a MECE revenue/cost spine, but it buries the $8.5B answer until p.33 and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for scenario analysis structure, not for Storymakers opening or action-title craft.”
↓ Buries the answer: the $8.5B total impact does not appear until p.33 of 38; opening is two disclaimers + cover + TOC with no executive summary
62
narrative
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription
62
narrative
Global Gas Outlook 2050
“Solid analytical brief with strong quantified mid-deck titles, but it is a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of action-title writing on data slides, not as a model for full story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.6 then dumps into model methodology and a credits slide
62
narrative
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
62
narrative
Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional
“A well-opened, well-quantified problem statement that abdicates its own conclusion — use slides 1-7 as a teaching example for stakes-setting and action titles, but not as a complete Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.10 asks 'What will it take to improve productivity?' but the deck ends without answering
62
narrative
Brazil Digital Report
“A solid analytical landscape report with disciplined section structure and several strong declarative titles, but it reads as a research summary rather than a Storymakers deck — use the talent section's titling as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends on 'In summary:' (p.42) and a thank-you (p.43), violating the SCQA 'Resolution' act
62
narrative
Battery materials demand and supply perspective
“A competent McKinsey market-perspective deck with strong quantified action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens without a thesis and closes on 'unknowns remain' plus a generic 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.4–9), not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.11 is titled 'Conclusion' — a topic label, not an action title — and offers no recommendation or next step
62
narrative
Good as Gold: Resilience and Continued Attractiveness of the Global K-12 Sector
“A solid narrowing-funnel thought-leadership piece with mostly good action titles and a clean 3-pillar structure, but it buries the recommendation under a 9-slide identically-titled data dump — use the p.3-22 analytical build as a teaching example, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides (p.26-34) with the literally identical title 'Overall growth in the premium segment…(X of 9)' — the single biggest narrative failure, forcing the reader to do all the synthesis
62
narrative
Education: 2022 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2023
“Solid analytical mid-section with disciplined action titles, but it is structured as a market-update report rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for data-slide titling, not for arc design or closes.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the deck buries its forward-looking thesis behind 12 slides of 2022 retrospection
62
narrative
Agile Transformation
“A stat-rich KPMG survey report with a competent three-pillar diagnosis and good case-study cadence, but the thesis is buried at p.30, the close is a service pitch followed by 11 appendix pages, and pillars exist only in title prefixes — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored analytical builds, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ 11 of 42 pages (p.32-42) are appendix/country-background — over a quarter of the deck dumps undifferentiated country snapshots ('Background – Belgium', 'Background - Brazil', etc.) that read as raw survey output
62
narrative
2020 CEO Outlook COVID-19
“A competently themed survey-findings deck with a stated three-pillar frame but no recommendation payoff — useful as a teaching example of action-title statistics, not of full SCQA story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.21 'In summary' is reflective, not directive
62
narrative
529 cpe
“A polished JPMorgan client-education reference deck with a solid analytical middle but a weak narrative frame — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and comparison tables, not for opening, closing, or signposting a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on disclosures (p.43-44) and a branded product page (p.45), with no 'so what should you do Monday' synthesis
62
narrative
250115 ucb company presentation jpm
“A competent investor-day narrative with clean two-pillar structure and a memorable 'Decade+' through-line, but it skips the complication act and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers action-title or SCQA model.”
↓ No upfront thesis or stakes — the first 3 slides (cover, disclaimer, vision) delay the actual investment story until p.5
62
narrative
20250114 bayer handout jpm 2025
“A solid investor-relations handout with strong asset-level action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches headline discipline more than narrative architecture — use individual slides (p.7, p.10, p.13) as title-craft references, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the LoE transition (the actual investor tension) is acknowledged only in the closing title, never framed up front
62
narrative
2022 international consumer growth initiatives investor day
“A tight, well-titled investor-day excerpt that opens with the answer but trails off into M&A housekeeping; useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified claims, not for full-deck narrative architecture.”
↓ No Complication slide — jumps from 'opportunity' to 'we are investing' without articulating why now or what risk forces the move
62
narrative
2020 cib investor day
“A textbook investor-day deck with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts but no SCQA tension and no synthesis close — use slides 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 34, 35 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p18, p19, p20) reuse essentially the same action title about «continuity and completeness in coverage» — a tell that the argument was not decomposed MECE before titling
62
narrative
Reset Innovation Priorities
“A solid whitepaper-style how-to with a strong opening question and useful frameworks, but Storymakers-weak — figure-caption titles and a generic close make this a teaching example for analytical scaffolding, not narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are figure captions, not insights — every framework slide (p.4, p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.15) is titled 'Figure N: …'
62
narrative
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor stability in an unstable world
“A solid thought-leadership research report with disciplined section structure but written as an essay, not a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of pillar organization and section-divider headlines, not of answer-first openings or actionable closes.”
↓ Five identical 'Concluding thoughts' titles (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) waste the highest-leverage slot in each section