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 12 / 31
62
narrative
2023 HALF-YEAR RESULTS
“A competent half-year earnings deck with disciplined three-pillar structure and several genuinely insight-bearing action titles, but it lacks an upfront thesis and a memorable close — useful as a teaching example for action-title diagnosis (p.8–10), not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No upfront executive summary or thesis slide — the reader must reach p.3 to learn the headline and never gets a single-page synthesis
62
narrative
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
62
narrative
South Africa Economic Outlook Productivity Potential Index (PPI): A new way of measuring countries’ productive competiti
“A tight diagnostic note with strong action titles and an implicit MECE pillar structure, but it stops at diagnosis — useful as an example of pillar-based analysis, not as a full S→C→A→R Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.9 diagnosis then jumps to p.10 contacts, with no recommendation or next-steps slide
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
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
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
Megatrend 5 – Technology & Innovation
“A disciplined, evidence-rich trend compendium with strong action titles and a rare explicit recommend block, but structurally a flat technology inventory rather than a tensioned narrative — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft and quantitative anchoring, not for story architecture.”
↓ Opening (p.1-5) is corporate-publication boilerplate — series framing, agenda, definition — with no hook, no stakes, no thesis statement; the reader has waited five pages before any argument lands
62
narrative
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)
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
Navigating payments matrix
“A well-researched thematic walkthrough of payments trends with a genuinely useful 4 Rs framework, but it reads more like a magazine feature than a tight Storymakers argument — use the framework slides (p.21-23) as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.24-28) drift into regional trends and quotes with no call-to-action — the deck fizzles
62
narrative
Indonesia Sustainable Transformation
“A competently structured ESG landscape report with strong action titles and a clean three-pillar MECE spine, but it reads as analysis-without-resolution and is best used as a teaching example for pillar architecture and title craft, not for SCQA closure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a case study + quote + disclaimer (p.29-31) with no recommendation or call to action
62
narrative
China M&A 2024 Review and Outlook
“A well-structured PwC market review with strong slide-level action titles but a weak synthesis and outlook — use slides 5, 9, 10, 17, 20 as exemplars of action-title craft, but not the deck as a whole-arc Storymakers model.”
↓ Synthesis pages 31–33 are titled 'Key messages (1)/(2)/(3)' — pure topic labels on the slides that should carry the strongest insight titles
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
2019 Global Treasury Benchmarking
“A competent benchmarking survey with above-average thesis-style dividers and number-led headlines, but it reads as six parallel mini-essays rather than one Storymakers arc — use the pillar dividers and recommendation slides as teaching examples, not the overall structure or close.”
↓ Two back-to-back 'Theme overviews' dividers (p.4 and p.5) waste opening real estate and signal a topic dump rather than a story.
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
uefa weuro 2025 approaching the summit en may 2025
“Competent EY economic-impact report with a disciplined 5-pillar measurement spine and strong numeric callouts, but the topic-label titles and missing closing synthesis make it a useful exemplar for MECE structure — not for Storymakers action-title or resolution craft.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (e.g. 'THE PROFESSIONAL GAME' p.19, 'BROADCAST AND SPONSORSHIP POTENTIAL' p.20) — none of the punchy stats reach the action title
62
narrative
ey global ipo trends q4 2019
“Competent regional market-update deck with a clear thesis up front and a strong rhetorical close, but undermined by lazy repeated topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide - use the quote-slide openers as a teaching example, not the analytical pages.”
↓ Workhorse analytical slides reuse identical topic-label titles ('Global IPO market insight' x3, 'Asia-Pacific IPO market insight' x3, 'Europe, Middle East, India and Africa IPO market insight' x3) - every one of those should carry the slide's specific insight
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
62
narrative
EY Foundation 2022 2023 Impact Report
“A competent non-profit impact report with strong stakes and a bold closing target, but title quality and the long un-pillared case-study run keep it short of a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'how to use callouts to carry the argument' counter-example more than a structural template.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly nouns ('Income', 'Volunteers', 'Welcome', 'Smart Futures') instead of insight-bearing claims