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 16 / 46
68
narrative
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
68
narrative
From Lead to Cash Simplify and Scale with Revenue Ops
“A competently structured RevOps point-of-view with a clean MECE spine but topic-label titles and a buried recommendation — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are dominated by topic nouns ('People', 'Process', 'Technology', 'Recommendations', 'Conclusion') instead of declarative insights
68
narrative
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
68
narrative
The ultimate healthcare experience: what people want
“A competently structured four-pillar research brief with a clean MECE scaffold but a weak opening hook and a toothless closing — useful as a teaching example of section architecture, not of action titles or calls-to-action.”
↓ Recommendation slide (p.19) uses a descriptive paragraph as its title instead of a directive action title — the single most important slide doesn't prescribe
68
narrative
The next billion consumers
“A solid thought-leadership deck with a strong quantified opening and clean segmentation, but the recommendation framework is under-titled and the close rallies rather than resolves; useful as an exemplar for action-title data slides, not for closing arc.”
↓ Four-driver framework (p.27-38) is introduced via divider words ('Digital brain', 'Digital brawn') not insight titles, and each driver is explained through 'Ask:' prompts rather than imperatives
68
narrative
Navigating uncertain skies Commercial Aerospace Insight Report
“A solid industry-outlook report with quantified evidence and parallel recommendations, but the recommend-before-diagnose sequencing and absent closing CTA make it a better teaching example for action-title writing than for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendations (p.13–15) precede the deeper diagnostic of costs, production, and risk (p.18–22), inverting the analyze→recommend order
68
narrative
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
68
narrative
Level Up: Elevate Your Business With a Platform Strategy
“A competently-structured thought-leadership deck with strong data-backed titles in the middle but a soft open and a closing that trails into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 2.1 pp margin advantage (p.3 callout) should be slide 1's headline, not a sub-bullet behind a definition
68
narrative
January Macro Brief
“A strong analytical brief with exemplary declarative action titles and well-placed recommendations, but it stops short of being a Storymakers exemplar because it never closes the loop — use p.5/p.13/p.24 as title-writing teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on trend #10 (p.40) then a team bio (p.41) with no 'what to do first' or consolidated action slide
68
narrative
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
68
narrative
Future-proof ad sales: The new transformation imperative
“Competent two-act transformation thesis with quantified stakes and a clear protect-now/pivot-next spine, but topic-label titles and bundled recommendations keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.11-15 as a pillar-divider teaching case, not the titling.”
↓ Figure-label titles like p.6 "FIGURE 2: Digital versus non-digital advertising spend" and p.8's 60-word run-on title waste prime real estate
68
narrative
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
68
narrative
Embracing the Loyalty Equation
“A well-researched Accenture POV with a strong central framework but a soft opening, repeated titles, and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of framework-anchored analysis, not of Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Duplicate generic action titles: 'The way forward' appears on both p.17 and p.21, signaling the recommendation section was not sharpened
68
narrative
Conquering the next value frontier in private equity
“A competent market-shaping POV with strong data slides and an early thesis, but the closing recommendations are fragmented and title discipline is uneven — useful as a teaching example for action-title-on-data-slide patterns, not as a whole-deck Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slides 4-8 re-establish context after slide 3 already delivered the headline, diluting momentum in the opening act
68
narrative
Bridging the Skills Gap in the Future Workforce
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear problem→answer→ask spine, but it breaks its own 'three steps' MECE promise and hides insights behind generic chart labels — use p.7, p.20, and p.22 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Missing STEP TWO and STEP THREE dividers — the MECE promise made on p.16 is never kept, so pp.22 and 25 read as a stream rather than parallel pillars
66
narrative
Blurred lines: How FinTech is shaping Financial Services
“A competent, stake-led PwC industry report with a clean numbered spine and several memorable action titles, but the recommendation collapses into a single 'Conclusion' slide after a heavy analytical middle — useful as a teaching example for stake-setting and 'So what?' synthesis, not for landing the ask.”
↓ Resolution act is just two slides (p.29 recommendation + p.30 'Conclusion') after ~22 pages of analysis — the recommendation is buried, not headlined.
66
narrative
Homeowner availability study
“A competent regulatory study with an excellent action-title stretch in section 04 and clean quantitative anchoring throughout, but it opens with topic labels and closes with 'considerations' instead of a recommendation — use the p.13–p.33 sequence as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.38–42 deliver 'KEY TAKEAWAYS' and four flavors of 'CONSIDERATIONS' but never say what Colorado should do
66
narrative
2021 q4 earnings results presentation
“A competently-staged maiden-earnings deck with strong title discipline on body slides, but structurally it is a performance report with a forecast appended, not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft on analytical pages, not as a model for act structure or closing punch.”
↓ No Complication/tension beat — Section 2 jumps from 'who we are' to 'we are delivering' with no 'what was at stake' slide
66
narrative
Fearon DBConference 2019
“A competent investor/IR deck with strong action-title discipline and a real arc, but it buries the thesis 20 slides in and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example of action-title writing and slide-chaining, not of Storymakers opening/closing craft.”
↓ Thesis deferred ~20 pages — p.21 'Eaton is well positioned to take advantage of these growth trends' should be near the front, not two-thirds in
66
narrative
The importance of being human in a digital world
“Research-report-style thought-leadership deck with a strong unifying metaphor and a genuine two-pillar MECE spine, but titles recycle section labels instead of carrying per-slide insights — useful as a teaching example of anchor-phrase discipline, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles collapse into section labels — five consecutive slides (p.7, 9, 10, 11, 12) all titled '03 Key research findings' with no per-slide insight, forcing the reader to mine the body for the point
66
narrative
TSN Barclays Consumer Staples FINAL
“A well-structured investor outlook deck with a crisp Grow/Deliver/Sustain spine and mostly declarative titles, but it lacks tension and ends on 'Thank you' — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline and action-title craft, not of full SCQA narrative.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the story is all reassurance, which flattens the narrative into an analytical dump despite the clean pillar structure
66
narrative
20240220 Barclays FY2023 FI Call Slides
“A competent IR deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified analytical spine, but it lacks a complication act and trails into Q&A without a closing recommendation — use p.3-8 and p.13-14 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends at p.19 rating target, then Q&A/appendix/disclaimer, so the 'so what' never gets restated
66
narrative
Transforming the Industry that transformed the World: 01 Shift to as-a-serice
“A disciplined, template-driven thought-leadership deck with strong per-pillar rhythm but a flat overall arc and no synthesis close - use its section architecture and case-led pillar pattern as a teaching example, not its opening or ending.”
↓ No closing synthesis - deck ends inside pillar #5 (p.29) then jumps to survey-method appendix (p.30), leaving five imperatives un-prioritized and no CTA
65
narrative
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a thesis-first open and a real recommendation close, but the middle is a trend-report dump without MECE pillars - useful as a teaching example for action-title quantification, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No MECE section dividers - slides 4-13 are an undifferentiated industry_trends run with no signposting of where the argument is going