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 15 / 46
68
narrative
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title
68
narrative
id18 leveraging capabilities for wealth management
“A competent investor-day deck with a clean three-pillar middle and a proper synthesis close, but weak action titles and a missing complication act make it a useful example of IR-style structure rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are overwhelmingly nouns, not insights — 'Our Key Priorities' (p.5), 'Our Businesses' (p.6), 'Wealth Management: Who We Are' (p.8) bury the takeaway
68
narrative
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
68
narrative
20240220 Barclays FY2023 Results and Investor Update Presentation
“A disciplined IR/strategy hybrid with a genuine MECE pillar spine and mostly insight-bearing titles, but bloated by per-division template repetition and duplicate book-ends — use the FY23 results run (pp.4-24) and the SBMB framework as exemplars, not the 145-page whole.”
↓ 145 pages with heavy repetition — each division repeats the same SBMB template (e.g. pp.100-103, pp.108-114, pp.119-122), so momentum stalls after the first division
68
narrative
e-Conomy SEA 2020 At full velocity: Resilient and racing ahead
“A solid industry research report with textbook action titles in its analytical core (p12–p60) but front-loaded with methodology, weak on an explicit recommendation, and tailing into a repetitive country appendix — use the sector-analysis middle as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The country section (p95–127) is six near-identical mini-decks with repeated generic titles ('Exponential growth of digital consumers (who will stay)', 'Investment in Internet sector') — a topic-dump, not an insight-led close
68
narrative
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis
68
narrative
Socio-economic case for deepening solar PV deployment in Nigeria
“A textbook BCG pillar-analysis deck with exemplary action titles and MECE structure, but it buries the recommendation in a single slide and ends on 'Thank you' — use the middle (p.20-76) as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not the opening or the close.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.85) after 76 pages of analysis — 12 interventions named but no prioritization, owners, or sequencing
68
narrative
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
68
narrative
Facts, scenarios, and actions for leaders Publication #3 with a focus on Emerging Stronger from the Crisis
“A competent crisis-era BCG update with a clear framework spine and explicit recommendations, but the duplicated section dividers and topic-label transitions make it a decent analytical-build example rather than an exemplary Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Duplicate section divider titles on p.15 and p.30 ('COVID-19 Context and Development') collapse the MECE structure
68
narrative
BCG's Guide to Cost and Growth
“A competently argued thought-leadership deck with disciplined numeric action titles and a visible three-act spine, but it buries its recommendation behind a capabilities pitch — use p.3-9 and p.12-16 as a teaching example of statistic-led titling, not the overall close.”
↓ Closing collapses into capability-marketing: p.22 'BCG has deep expertise in cost management' replaces the recommendation slide the arc was building toward
68
narrative
The evolving private equity playbook
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a recognizable SCQA spine and strong quantified middle, but the opening buries its hook behind front-matter and the close fragments the recommendation — use the p.7, p.13 and p.16 titles as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Case study on p.4 precedes the problem framing on p.6–7, so the reader sees a 'result' before understanding what problem it solves
68
narrative
Accenture Tech Vision 2025
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE pillars and strong evidence cadence, but it buries its insights in generic section labels and fades into an appendix instead of landing a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for pillar architecture, not for action titling or closing.”
↓ Duplicated titles ('The Big Picture', 'The Technology', 'What's Next', 'A Portrait of the Future') recur in every section, making the deck unscannable and forcing readers to rely on callouts
68
narrative
2019 Fueling Energy Future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong problem framing and declarative titles, but the recommendation is smeared across too many framework slides and the close is a marketing link — use p.3 and p.15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is diluted across seven consecutive framework slides (p.10-17 all variations of 'wise pivot') with no single climactic 'here is the answer' moment
68
narrative
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3
68
narrative
2017 China Luxury Market Study
“A well-titled analytical market briefing with strong pull-quotes but no prescriptive payoff — use it as a teaching example for action titles and evidence-backed callouts, not for story architecture or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.15 and p.19 hint at brand plays but none crystallize a prescriptive next step
68
narrative
What’s in a (Domain) Name? The $2 Billion Secondary Market for Dot-Com Domains
“A tightly argued market-sizing brief with strong action-title discipline and a clean narrative pivot, but it stops at 'what is true' and never lands 'so what' — use it as a teaching example for headline writing and SCQA hinges, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on a data table (p.16) then 'THANK YOU' (p.18) with no recommendation, implication, or next step
68
narrative
TSS Index 2025 France
“A solid analytical BCG index deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the recommendation in one sparse slide and ends on a diagnostic rather than a close — use p.2-10 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Sector deep-dive titles (p.11 'Chemicals', p.12 'Transportation & Logistics', p.13 '2024 Performance Overview') are topic labels, not insights — loses the action-title thread built earlier
68
narrative
Shaping Future Indian ME
“A polished industry-outlook report with strong sector-level action titles and a clear two-pillar spine, but the recommendation is a single afterthought slide — use the sector deep-dives (p.20–26) and the headroom build (p.10–11, p.27) as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Recommendation reduced to one slide (p.43) with a topic-label title and no prioritization, owner, or sequencing
68
narrative
Mastering Marketing Measurement
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles in its benchmark half, but the narrative doubles back on itself and closes on a soft 'getting started' frame rather than a sharp recommendation - use pp.10-15 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Structural redundancy: the six steps are introduced on pp.4-8 and then re-litigated on pp.9-15 without a clear distinction between 'what leaders do' and 'why it works'
68
narrative
Gen Z Attitudes Toward Higher Education
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong action titles and one good transition hinge, but flat structure and a soft landing make it a title-craft exemplar rather than a full Storymakers model.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — the 11 analytical slides read as a flat sequence rather than grouped chapters
68
narrative
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
68
narrative
Digitizing Make in India Report 2024
“A disciplined sector-intelligence report with exemplary parallel sub-structure inside Section 02, but it reads like an analytical reference manual rather than a Storymakers narrative — use the sunrise-sector template as a teaching example for MECE sub-pillars, not as a model for opening or closing a deck.”
↓ No answer-first opening: two 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' pages (pp. 5-6) use the label as the title instead of stating the thesis, and the first insight-bearing action title doesn't appear until p. 10.
68
narrative
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
68
narrative
2025 Carbon Survey Report
“A competent survey-results deck with strong declarative titles and a numeric spine, but it stalls as a Storymakers exemplar because it never resolves - use pages 2, 4, 6, 8 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No resolution act - the deck ends on p.10 with a descriptive finding and no explicit recommendation or call to action