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 18 / 46
62
narrative
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
62
narrative
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS MONITOR
“A thought-leadership research report with a strong counter-intuitive opening that gradually devolves into a topic-by-topic analytical dump with no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for hooks and section dividers, not for a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Six slides titled 'Concluding thoughts' (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) — repetitive, generic, and forfeit the chance to land the per-section punchline in the title
62
narrative
2023 HALF-YEAR RESULTS
“A competent half-year earnings deck with disciplined three-pillar structure and several genuinely insight-bearing action titles, but it lacks an upfront thesis and a memorable close — useful as a teaching example for action-title diagnosis (p.8–10), not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No upfront executive summary or thesis slide — the reader must reach p.3 to learn the headline and never gets a single-page synthesis
62
narrative
2023 EU Wide EBA Stress Test Our First Glance at Results
“A competent analyst briefing with a strong BLUF opening and one memorable thesis ('P2G drives winners and losers'), but it buries action titles in callouts and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example for opening slides and benchmarking, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides (p.6–12) reuse '1. EBA Stress Test Impacts' as the on-slide title — the action-title work has been pushed into the callout layer, defeating skim-readability
62
narrative
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
62
narrative
South Africa Economic Outlook Productivity Potential Index (PPI): A new way of measuring countries’ productive competiti
“A tight diagnostic note with strong action titles and an implicit MECE pillar structure, but it stops at diagnosis — useful as an example of pillar-based analysis, not as a full S→C→A→R Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.9 diagnosis then jumps to p.10 contacts, with no recommendation or next-steps slide
62
narrative
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“A solid analytical macroeconomic outlook with strong action titles in the diagnosis section, but it reads as a research briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative - useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for arc design or closing.”
↓ No BLUF or thesis slide in the opening - reader must infer the deck's question from the dashboard on p.3
62
narrative
Global Sustainability Study 2023 Webinar
“A solid webinar-format thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean problem-evidence flow, but the recommendation framework is buried at the end and the section dividers repeat a slogan instead of naming MECE pillars — use the analytical middle (p.14-20) as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slides 2 and 3 are near-duplicate definitional slides, wasting two of the first three pages on terminology before any stakes are set
62
narrative
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
62
narrative
Global Pricing Study 2011
“A short research-summary teaser with strong headline-title discipline on its analytical slides but no recommendation and a self-promotional close — useful as an exemplar of insight titles, not of full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.9 with a firm-credentials slide ('No. 1 in marketing and sales in Germany')
62
narrative
Global Automotive Study 2023
“A well-titled, evidence-rich research-report deck whose per-slide craft is exemplary but whose overall arc is a parallel-themed survey rather than a Storymakers SCQA build — use the action titles and per-section 'How to act?' pattern as teaching examples, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — pages 1-5 are admin/methodology before the first insight on p.6
62
narrative
When will the knot finally unravel?
“A competent short market-update deck with disciplined quantified titles and a consistent thesis line, but it stops at outlook and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for full S-C-Q-A arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7's outlook is the de facto close, followed by filler (p.8) and front-matter (p.9)
62
narrative
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
62
narrative
Trends in the truck & trailer market
“A well-structured analytical market study with strong quantified titles and a clear MECE framework, but it stops at 'here is what we found' rather than 'here is what to do' - useful as a research-deck exemplar, weaker as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No genuine recommendation or 'so what' act - p.49 is the only slide tagged 'recommend' and it offers a generic capability statement rather than client actions
62
narrative
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
62
narrative
The Lithium-Ion (EV) battery market and supply chain
“Strong analytical mid-section with quantified, declarative titles, but bookended by a thesis-less opening and a triple-takeaway close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — first 5 pages establish context but never preview the answer or stakes
62
narrative
Roland Berger views on H2 market development
“A competent Roland Berger market-sizing study with strong action titles and clean MECE structure, but it is a reference document not a Storymakers exemplar — use the title-writing on p.11–18 as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No executive summary or BLUF — the EUR 10bn headline is buried on p.7 and never restated as a thesis
62
narrative
Private financing of rolling stock
“A well-structured analytical study with strong MECE pillars and metric-rich titles, but it reads as a research report rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide in the opening — the answer is delayed until p.8
62
narrative
Polish Digital Index
“A competently structured benchmark study with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it skips the upfront thesis and ends in a credentials pitch — use pp.12-18 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: the 'A. Synthesis' divider (p.3) is followed by a study-description (p.4) rather than a one-sentence answer to 'so what'
62
narrative
Megatrend 5 – Technology & Innovation
“A disciplined, evidence-rich trend compendium with strong action titles and a rare explicit recommend block, but structurally a flat technology inventory rather than a tensioned narrative — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft and quantitative anchoring, not for story architecture.”
↓ Opening (p.1-5) is corporate-publication boilerplate — series framing, agenda, definition — with no hook, no stakes, no thesis statement; the reader has waited five pages before any argument lands
62
narrative
Innovation in logistics: advanced pooling and robotization
“An analytically credible but structurally loose point-of-view deck — use its quantified action titles (p.12, p.16, p.19) as a teaching example, but not its overall arc, which promises a 3-pillar framework and delivers a single-pillar essay.”
↓ Middle act drift — pp.7-11 jump from Russia (p.7) to platform success factors (p.8) to a 5-cluster business-model framework (p.9) to a repeat of the '3 areas' slide (p.10) to 'Big 3 facts' (p.11), with no MECE thread
62
narrative
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)
62
narrative
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
62
narrative
Project Management: Improving performance, reducing risk
“A competently-structured awareness deck for a board audience that uses question-based section dividers well but reads as a topic walkthrough rather than an argument — useful as a teaching example of how clear section spines do not by themselves produce a Storymakers narrative when action titles and a synthesized close are missing.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the thesis is delayed until p.10 and never restated as a single declarative claim