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 14 / 46
68
narrative
IBV Research Report
“A solid three-pillar research report with the right analytical skeleton and a real recommendations close, but it buries its headline stat, under-uses section dividers, and leans on topic-label titles — teach the pillar structure, not the opening or the titling.”
↓ Headline stat (36% revenue/efficiency lift from analytics-led innovation) is buried on p.5 instead of driving the cover or exec summary
68
narrative
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
68
narrative
2023.05.31 Bernstein Conference
“A disciplined investor-day growth narrative with strong quantified titles but a missing Complication and a soft close — useful as an exemplar of numeric action titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Complication slide — the deck never names the obstacle, competitive threat, or 'why this is hard,' so Situation flows straight to Answer without tension
68
narrative
2023 Goldman Conference Presentation
“A solid investor-conference deck with disciplined action titles and peer-benchmark logic, but missing pillar dividers and a buried recommendation make it a good titles-and-callouts exemplar rather than a Storymakers narrative-arc exemplar.”
↓ No section dividers between the five thematic pillars — the deck reads as a flat sequence rather than a structured argument
68
narrative
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution
68
narrative
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Key Insights Report
“A solid evidence-led impact report with strong action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a results readout rather than a Storymakers story — use its titling and pillar structure as an exemplar, not its (absent) opening tension or closing recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a demographic stat (p.23) and 'About Accenture' (p.24) with no recommendation or call-to-action
68
narrative
deutsche bank global consumer conference 2023
“A competent investor-conference deck with quantified callouts and a tidy numbered strategy section, but it reads as a structured update rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use the callout discipline as a reference, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — deck moves context → analysis → recommendation without framing the strategic problem the 8 priorities are solving
68
narrative
Q1 2025 Fixed Income Call
“Competent fixed-income investor update with a disciplined answer-first opening and strong main-body action titles, but it collapses at the close ('Summary and outlook') and leans on a bloated 25-slide appendix — use the p.2-p.14 arc as a teaching example for answer-first sequencing, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Weak close: p.15 'Summary and outlook' is a topic label with no stated outlook, no recommendation, and no memorable takeaway
68
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2024 Presentation
“Textbook investor-earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified scorecard, but analytical and segment sections revert to topic labels and it tails off into a 29-page appendix — use slides 2 and 6-8 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Segment section (p.20-24) titled by entity ('Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank', 'Asset Management') instead of by insight — reader must parse callouts to learn which divisions are actually driving the thesis
68
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2023 Presentation
“Competent earnings deck with a strong thesis-led opener but a noun-titled mid-section and a flat 'Outlook' close — use p.2-10 as a Storymakers exemplar of leading with the answer, not the overall structure.”
↓ Segment pages (p.21-25) revert to noun titles — 'Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank' — forcing the reader to extract the insight from the callout
68
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q3 2023 incl S&P update
“A competent IR/creditor update with strong action titles up front but a topic-dump credit-risk section and no real close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and MECE dividers in the first half, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ Creditor section (p.18–27) abandons action titles for topic labels — 'Current ratings', 'Net balance sheet', 'Derivatives bridge' — losing the insight-bearing voice
68
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2025
“A competent investor/creditor update with a clean answer-first 9-slide narrative and a heavy reference appendix; use p.2-9 as a teaching example of concise IR storytelling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — reader cannot see the pillar structure of the argument
68
narrative
11 20230302 SDD How we measure and drive success
“A competent investor-relations ESG talk deck with a coherent spine and one strong insight title on p4, but soft complication and closing acts make it a solid example of structural flow — not a Storymakers exemplar for narrative tension or memorable close.”
↓ No complication/tension slide early on — p2 establishes context but the deck skips straight to the framework on p3 without stating what problem this solves
68
narrative
02 20230302 SDD Strategy Outlook and Ambition for 2025
“A solid internal strategy-outlook deck with clean divisional MECE and a strong quantified ambition, but it buries the thesis and ends in a generic takeaways slide — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.8 — first four slides are mission/context with no hard number or stake
68
narrative
Now decides next: Getting real about Generative AI
“A competent Deloitte thought-leadership report with a clean two-act skeleton and some strong action titles, but it buries its hook and repeats its section title as slide titles — use pp.9, 10, 22, 25 as examples of good declarative writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 4 pages on cover/TOC/foreword before any substantive claim; thesis never stated in first 3 slides
68
narrative
New Brunswick Supply Chain Study
“Thorough, analytically-rigorous public-sector supply-chain study with a competent opening thesis and disciplined scenario analysis — but titles default to topic labels and the recommendation is crushed into one slide after 23 pages of diagnosis; use it as a teaching example for demand modeling and vendor mapping structure, not for Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly topic labels — e.g. p.6 'Key Findings', p.28 'Vendor categorization', p.56 'Risk mitigation plan' — wasting the title real-estate that Storymakers treats as the primary message channel
68
narrative
Mental health today A deep dive based on the 2023 Gen Z and Millennial survey
“A competent, research-backed Deloitte thought-leadership deck with the bones of a Storymakers arc but soft titles and a buried thesis - use p.5 and p.8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Multiple slides (p.7, p.15, p.22, p.23) carry the report's running header as their title, leaving the reader without an action title on key hinge pages - including the two final recommendation slides.
68
narrative
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“A competently structured Deloitte research report with a genuine MECE spine and flashes of strong action-title writing, but it withholds the thesis, under-delivers the close, and leans on topic-label placeholders — use its 'four actions' scaffold as a pillar exemplar, not its opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis is withheld: the executive summary (p.3) describes scope rather than stating the answer, forcing readers to p.6 to meet the central question
68
narrative
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“Well-architected four-pillar consulting report with a strong SCQA opening but no closing synthesis — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar structure and tension-framing, not for resolution or action-titling discipline.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on a GPS case study (p.43) then jumps to acknowledgments; the four-action framework is never recapped or converted into a call to action
68
narrative
Digital Finance Seeing is Believing
“A competent webinar companion deck with a clean four-act journey and a strong case-study triptych, but interrogative titles and heavy front-matter make it only a mediocre Storymakers exemplar — use the Problem/Solution/Benefits case-study cadence as a teaching sample, not the overall title craft.”
↓ Six slides of webinar front-matter (p.1-6) before any content — thesis doesn't land until p.10, violating 'lead with the answer'
68
narrative
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A competent survey-report deck with a real thesis and a landed recommendation, but structured as an analytical tour rather than a tight Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing in the motivation section (pp.14-17), not as a model for opening discipline or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis inside a 3-part executive summary (pp.5-7) instead of stating the answer on p.2 or p.3
68
narrative
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A solid diagnostic survey deck with strong action-titled middle analysis but a hedged opening and a one-slide recommendation — use p.8-16 as a teaching example of insight titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: p.4-5 'Executive summary' callouts are hedged and don't state the one-line answer; no BLUF in first 3 slides
68
narrative
Deloitte 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world
“A well-architected research-trends deck with genuine MECE pillars and dense data, but it teaches as a framework lookbook rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its section structure as a model and its title writing as a counter-example.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels reused across 2-3 consecutive slides (e.g., 'Negotiating worker data' p.21-23, 'Activating the future of workplace' p.17-19) — readers can't skim the deck
68
narrative
Deloitte 2023 CxO Sustainability Report
“A competent research-report-as-deck with strong per-page action titles on the analytical spine but weak framing pages and a generic recommendation close — use pp. 5, 8, 14, 16 as a teaching example of good action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven near-identical «What leaders are saying about …» quote slides (pp. 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19) are topic labels, not insights, and flatten the narrative pace