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
737 matching · page 15 / 31
58
narrative
Decarbonization in ports and shipping
“A competent thought-leadership / business-development deck with strong action titles and a clean macro-to-micro context build, but it stops short of a recommendation and pivots to firm credentials — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and SCQA setup, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Self-promotion crowds the narrative: p.2, p.3 and p.11 are credentials/RB-targets slides in a 12-page deck — 25% of the real estate is about the firm, not the client problem
58
narrative
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
58
narrative
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
58
narrative
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025: Hong Kong summary
“Solid analytical mid-deck with good action titles in the segment dives, but a weak thesis-free opening and a tangential Gen AI tail leave it as a useful teaching example for MECE segment build-up — not for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No SCQA hook in opening — p.4-5 establish scope without naming the central question or answer
58
narrative
COPERNICUS Market report February 2019
“A rigorous nine-sector market impact report with strong MECE bones and good quantified case studies, but it is structured as a research deliverable rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for parallel sector analysis and SWOT title-craft, not for opening hooks, action titles, or closing resolution.”
↓ No closing act — the deck stops at security case study p.155 with zero recommendation, next-step, or 'so what for EU funding' slide
58
narrative
eyp global economic outlook jan 2024
“A well-titled, evidence-rich economic outlook with a strong thematic spine but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for declarative action titles and scenario framing, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No closing act: the deck ends with country analysis (p.36) → 'Agenda' (p.37) → bios (p.38-39) → disclaimer; zero synthesis, recommendation, or implications slide
58
narrative
ey sports engagement index january 2025
“A competent research-report deck with strong action titles in the analytical core, but it is a topic-organized data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for arc construction.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.18 'we continue to track many other sports' with zero recommendations or implications for sports bodies, sponsors, or rights holders
58
narrative
ey q2 2020 global ipo trends report v1
“A competent quarterly market-trends report with strong regional analysis but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.6, p.13, p.15) and MECE-by-geography coverage, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends at p.25 with a soft EY house-ad and tips into a six-page appendix without a 'so what / do this next' slide
58
narrative
ey global ipo trends 2022 v1
“A competently-opened thought-leadership piece with strong stat hooks and one clean MECE pillar, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends on a hedge — useful as an example of strong opening framing, not of a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck trails off into a repeated hedge title on pp.10-11 and a disclaimer on p.12
58
narrative
ey gl hfs horizons insurance services excerpt 06 2025
“A competent HFS-style analyst research report with disciplined methodology and a few strong data-titled slides, but structured as a topic-organized findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action titles on pp.21-22 and p.27, not for overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck terminates in vendor profile (p.27) and front-matter (pp.29-30)
58
narrative
article thebeatmar2025
“A monthly market chartbook with a strong answer-first opening and ~15 well-titled thesis slides, but the back half is an unstructured data reference with no closing recommendation — use slides 3-17 as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a correlation table (p.51) and team bio (p.54), never restating or evolving the Top 4 Ideas from p.4
58
narrative
2023 MS Conference Presentation
“A solid lead-with-the-answer investor deck for the first 11 slides that then dissolves into a 19-slide reference appendix — useful as a teaching example for thesis-first openings and peer-benchmark titling, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 60% of the deck (p.12-30) is appendix; the narrative effectively ends at p.11 with no recommendation or call-to-action slide
58
narrative
What’s the future of generative AI? An early view in 15 charts
“A polished McKinsey explainer with strong action titles and a clear opening, but structured as a chart roundup rather than an SCQA argument — useful as a teaching example for title craft and lead-with-the-answer, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.16-17 macro sizing and a logo page (p.18), with no recommendation or 'what to do Monday' slide
58
narrative
The Inflation Reduction Act: Here’s what’s in it
“A competent McKinsey policy explainer with disciplined money-throughline and several strong quantified titles, but it is structurally an analytical primer — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never names a Complication or lands a Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — deck ends on p.11 fiscal chart then jumps straight to author bios (p.12)
58
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor 2021
“A solid, data-dense market monitor with disciplined action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a reference document not a story — use its individual analytical slides as title-writing exemplars, but not its overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening and no recommendation close — p.2 asks 'What is this document for?' and the deck ends on methodology (pp.41-44) with no 'so what / now what' slide
58
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality analytical monitor with exemplary action titles and quantified framing, but it reads as a reference almanac rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for title craft and data-comparison slides, not for arc structure or closing.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck ends on appendix/team bio (pp. 101–103) after a speculative AI tangent (pp. 99–100)
58
narrative
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
58
narrative
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“A competent McKinsey outlook with strong analytical titles per vector but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do' act — deck ends on the emissions gap (p.26) then jumps to 'Get in touch' (p.27)
58
narrative
Future Energy Landscape Netherlands
“A data-rich McKinsey market-outlook deck with strong quantified titles in the Netherlands section but a missing thesis up front, duplicate section dividers, and a non-committal close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and cost-curve evidence stacking, not for full SCQA structure.”
↓ Two section dividers (p.23 and p.28) carry identical text and neither names the trend it introduces — pillars are invisible to the reader
58
narrative
ESG momentum: Seven reported traits that set organizations apart
“A competent McKinsey research-survey readout with strong action titles and clean leader-vs-laggard benchmarking, but it never delivers the 'seven traits' MECE structure its title promises and closes on the authors page instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ The titular 'seven traits' are never explicitly named or numbered — the reader has to count and infer them across p.5-p.11
58
narrative
Driving innovation at scale
“A McKinsey board-education deck with strong analytical mid-section and headline-grade data points, but it buries its recommendation in the appendix and opens with anecdote — use the fear-culture build (p.18–22) and the data-driven titles as exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is missing from the main body — p.24 closes on an open question, and the most persuasive numbers (2.4x profit on p.31, 97% outperformance on p.27, iQ CTA on p.32) are dumped into the appendix.
58
narrative
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
58
narrative
A pivot for Germany
“A competent survey-results readout with strong title hygiene but no narrative arc — useful as an exemplar of action-titled findings slides, not as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'Germany is optimistic' to recommendations without surfacing the threat the pivot answers
58
narrative
Impact of the US BIOSECURE Act on Biopharmas, Contract Services and Investors
“A competent, quant-anchored survey readout with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it sells its own findings short by ending in a capabilities pitch instead of a recommendation - use slides 7-8 as examples of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a capabilities slide (p.11) and a sales CTA (p.12) instead of a recommendation for biopharmas, CxOs or investors