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 14 / 27
62
narrative
FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation
“A polished, MECE earnings deck with disciplined action titles in the financial walk but no Complication and a recycled close — useful as a teaching example for top-down financial titling and divisional MECE, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication act — nowhere in the first 10 slides is a tension, headwind, or stakeholder doubt named, so the 'progress' story has nothing to push against
62
narrative
Barclays US Consumer Bank 2024 Barclays Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report
“A competent research-bulletin deck with strong stat-led callouts but a weak narrative spine — useful as an example of numerical action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of SCQA structure or persuasive close.”
↓ Slide 5 has a non-title ('2024 Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report | 5') — a running footer mistaken for an action title, wasting a data-table slide
62
narrative
Accenture Post and Parcel Industry Research 2019
“A solid industry thought-leadership report with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts, but weak Storymakers exemplar overall — use sections 1–2 as a model for action titles and MECE build, not as a template for opening and close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 3–5 pages — reader must reach p.21 '5 SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES DETERMINE HIGH PERFORMANCE' to find the organizing answer
62
narrative
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
62
narrative
Winning on the Margins TeBIT 2023
“A competent BCG benchmark readout with declarative titles and a solid opening, but it buries its recommendation and ends on an observation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and S->C openings, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — p.14 ends on an observation, burying the call to action
62
narrative
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer
62
narrative
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights
“A polished annual research compendium with consistently strong action titles and an exemplary CX mini-arc (pp.58-77), but as a whole deck it is an eight-chapter trends catalogue rather than a single Storymakers argument — use the CX section as a teaching example of SCQA, not the overall structure.”
↓ No deck-level thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the first 5 pages — reader has to infer the argument from chapter titles
62
narrative
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
62
narrative
Perspectives on WMATA's ridership
“A competent analytical build-up that diagnoses the ridership problem well but ends on a question instead of an answer — useful as a teaching example of retrospective diagnosis and action titles, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation act: p.27 'What does this all mean for WMATA's ridership?' is the final content slide and it asks rather than answers
62
narrative
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
62
narrative
Climate Change: BCG’s Perspectives and Offerings
“An analytically strong, well-titled educational deck with a clean three-act spine that buries its own punchline - use p.17-p.25 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, but not as a structural exemplar because the promised 'Offerings' never land.”
↓ No answer-first slide - the thesis doesn't crystallize until p.7, and even then it's a problem statement not a recommendation
62
narrative
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q2 2023
“A competent investor-survey readout with a strong answer-first opening and good action titles in the middle, but it is a data report, not a story — use p.3-5 and p.12 as teaching examples of front-loaded insight, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for executives' slide — deck ends at p.16 (ESG caveat) then falls into seven appendix data tables (p.17-23) and contact info
62
narrative
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
62
narrative
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
60
narrative
ey tt amcham presentation 2023 economic outlook 20230123
“A competent survey-results deck with strong action-title craft on individual slides, but structurally it is a parallel findings dump rather than a Storymakers argument — useful as an exemplar of action-title writing, not of narrative arc.”
↓ No upfront answer — the thesis/recommendation is never stated in the first 5 slides; the reader must reach p9 for the first insight and p35 for the conclusion
60
narrative
KPMG global tech report 2024
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong stat-anchored mid-section titles and a real conclusion+CTA arc, but it organizes findings instead of telling a story — useful as an example of pillar discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: p.1-5 are cover, TOC, foreword, methodology, and a teaser before the first insight slide at p.7
60
narrative
Consolidated Full Presentation
“A disciplined investor-day portfolio update with strong action-title and callout craft within each LOB, but no firm-wide story arc — use individual sections (especially the CCB Banking and CIB Markets builds) as teaching examples for slide-level Storymakers discipline, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No firm-wide narrative spine: the macro tension on p.7 and p.16 never resolves into a 'so therefore' for the whole firm — it dissolves into five parallel LOB stories
60
narrative
2020 ccb investor day
“A disciplined investor-day performance review with strong action-title and metric hygiene but no narrative tension and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of quantified action titles and MECE business-unit structure, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never acknowledges secular headwinds, fintech threats, or rate environment as tension to resolve — it reads as monologue, not argument
60
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Presentation
“A textbook bank-earnings deck with a strong declarative opening but a tail-heavy, recommendation-free close — useful as a Storymakers example for action-title openings, not as a model for full narrative arc.”
↓ Segment slides p16-p20 use division names as titles instead of insight statements
58
narrative
EY Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but template-driven oral-proposal deck whose three-phase spine is reusable, but whose topic-label titles and missing thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'before' case for retitling exercises.”
↓ Action titles are topic labels, not insights — 'Timeline', 'Lessons learned', 'Examples of measures', 'Phase one/two/three' force the audience to read the body to learn anything
58
narrative
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
58
narrative
Insurance Trends and Growth Opportunities for Poland (2015)
“Solid analytical setup and several insight-bearing titles, but the deck is a trend tour that never resolves into a recommendation - useful as a teaching example for S->C framing on p.3-4, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution: 'Topics for the debate' (p.24) abdicates the recommendation a consulting deck owes its audience
58
narrative
IPSOS SEA AHEAD SHIFTS & SENTIMENTS
“A solid sentiment-research dossier with several Storymakers-grade action titles in its first pillar, but it ends on a broken promise (empty NetZero roadmap → Q&A → tagline) and never synthesizes its three pillars into a recommendation — use pp.6-18 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No closing recommendation — p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' divider is followed only by Q&A (p.34) and a brand tagline (p.35); the roadmap itself is missing
58
narrative
Medical Affairs Outlook Report
“A competent industry-outlook report with a recognizable arc and a few strong action titles, but it leads with topic instead of thesis and ends in platitude — useful as a 'callouts done right' example, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening (p.1–3) never states the thesis — the executive summary callout is a vague consensus statement, not the answer