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 2 / 31
74
narrative
The overall positive sentiment was also reflected in the supplier valuation levels that still trade above their long-ter
“Strong analytical build-up and disciplined 5-pillar challenge section, but the recommendation is buried until p60 and the deck tapers into a contact slide — use sections 1 and 3 as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Buries the recommendation — 'answer-first' is violated at deck level: the 8-element transformation framework only appears at p60/86 and the executive summary on p3-4 doesn't preview it
74
narrative
New US tax/tariff proposals and their impact on the US automotive industry
“An analytically rigorous, answer-first Roland Berger argument with excellent declarative titles and a clean S→C→A pillar structure, but it stops at impact and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified build-up, not for how to close a deck.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck stops at p32's impact number with no recommendation, mitigation play, or stance on what OEMs/policymakers should do next
74
narrative
OUR 5 URGENT ACTS
“A well-structured two-act advocacy deck with a strong diagnosis and a quotable close — use the SCQA opening (p.3-4) and the catalyst close (p.23-24) as exemplars, but flag the prescription section as a teaching case for why action lists need pillared sub-dividers and answer-first framing.”
↓ The 5 acts (p.14) are listed but never explicitly mapped back to the 43 GT gap or the p.9 sector-lag matrix, so the recommendation feels asserted rather than derived
74
narrative
Going full circle
“A competent research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a coherent diagnostic spine, but the thin opening and single-slide resolution make it a good teaching example for title craft and tension-building, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Opening is methodology-heavy: p.3 'Sample size by country' belongs in an appendix, not slide 3 of a 15-page argument.
74
narrative
ey eurelectric flexibility study 2025 20250306
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership report with strong data anchors and a real chapter arc, but it front-loads its argument into a 7-page exec summary and recycles chapter names as slide titles — use Chapter 5 (p39–40) and the quote slides as Storymakers exemplars, but treat the title craft and CTA as cautionary cases.”
↓ Multiple slides reuse the chapter divider as their own action title (p12 and p15 both titled 'Why flexibility matters and how much is enough'; p33 and p34 both titled 'What it takes to unlock flexibility potential') — squandering the headline real estate
74
narrative
European Deep Tech – Opportunities and Discoveries
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with a clean A–E narrative spine and quantified titles, but it buries the thesis up front and fizzles into a generic 'collective effort' close — use sections B and C as Storymakers exemplars, not the bookends.”
↓ Closing slide p.18 is generic ('collective effort from all actors') with no recommendations, owners, or next steps — and contains a typo ('Deel Tech')
74
narrative
Perspectives on US Healthcare Inflation Insights from L.E.K. Consulting
“A competent analytical perspective piece with strong action titles and a clean stakeholder-cut recommendation block, but missing the SCQA opening and synthesizing close that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — use p.4/p.6/p.9-11 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA setup: the deck jumps from agenda (p.2) straight to a data observation (p.3) with no stated question, stakes, or hypothesis
74
narrative
20240220 Barclays US Consumer Bank Investor Update
“A competent investor-update deck with a clean three-pillar resolution and solid analytical titles, but it buries the thesis in the opening and lacks an explicit tension act — use p.11-15 as a MECE-pillar teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.2-4 set context but the 2026 RoTE promise only appears on p.7
74
narrative
Fast Forward Route to Consumers
“A well-argued Bain point-of-view on luxury design retail with strong action titles and a clear tension-to-framework build, but it fizzles at the close with no recommendation — use slides 2-10 as a teaching example of analytical setup, not the ending.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — p.21 is just the Bain logo, so the framework on p.19-20 has no 'therefore, do X' payoff.
74
narrative
Altagamma 2018 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A competent market-monitor deck with strong numeric action titles and a real recommendation, but the opening buries the thesis and the pillar structure is asymmetric — use its action-title discipline as a teaching example, not its overall arc.”
↓ p.44 repeats p.8's title 'LUXURY IN 2025 WILL BE A DIFFERENT PLACE' verbatim as the deck approaches closure — feels like a recycled placeholder rather than a summative insight
74
narrative
Seeing the BIG Picture
“A structurally elegant thought-leadership report with a MECE cinematic spine and strong insight-bearing analytical titles — use the LIGHTS/CAMERA/ACTION build (pp.10–43) as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar design and declarative titling, but not as a model for opening, closing, or transition discipline.”
↓ Five filler transition slides (pp.7, 9, 25, 41, 45) plus a literal '55' placeholder (p.55) bleed momentum between every section
74
narrative
Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference
“A tight 14-slide BCG press deck with strong declarative titles and a legible analytical arc, but it buries methodology up front and ends on a thesis restatement instead of a call to action: useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and paired contrast slides, not for closing structure.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide: the deck ends on a thesis restatement (p.13) followed by a brand cover, leaving the reader with a diagnosis but no prescription
74
narrative
Digital consumer spending India
“A structurally disciplined market-sizing + sector-diagnosis deck with a strong thesis-forward opening and clean MECE pillars, but it buries its recommendation in a duplicated intervention slide and fades into case studies — use the sector-diagnosis spine (p11-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the closing act.”
↓ p24 and p25 share the exact same title 'Key interventions for driving growth in digital transactions' — the central recommendation slide is duplicated instead of sharpened
74
narrative
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
74
narrative
AI Radar 2025
“Competent BCG thought-leadership deck with a strong SCQA spine and mostly insight-bearing action titles — use the rhetorical-question dividers and data-led titles as teaching examples, but flag the buried lead and soft closing as what to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 75/25 gap on p.6 should be slide 2 or 3, not page six
74
narrative
AI Radar C-Suite Agenda
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with a clean tension pivot and strong action titles, but the middle lacks MECE scaffolding and the recommendation is compressed into one slide — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing and S→C→A hinges, less so for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillar signposting — the middle (pp.10-17) reads as a sequence of 'winners do X' observations rather than a structured framework
74
narrative
Work, workforce, workers Reinvented in the age of generative AI
“A solid thought-leadership report with a genuine SCQA backbone and a MECE four-accelerator resolution, but it reads more like a polished briefing than a Storymakers exemplar - use its section architecture as a teaching case, not its action titles or its missing close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on an inspirational quote (p.42) then drops straight into appendices
74
narrative
Industrial Speedsters How advanced technologies can turbocharge your speed to market
“Competent analytical-build deck with a respectable S→C→A→R skeleton and quantified action titles — useful as a mid-tier Storymakers example, but not exemplary because the thesis is buried and pillar scaffolding is absent.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.9 — the 'Speedster' payoff concept is never previewed in the opening five slides
74
narrative
Accelerating net zero 2050
“A solidly-built thought-leadership report with answer-first framing and a clear call to action, but over-long openings and under-signposted middle acts keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.22-30 as a teaching example of analysis-to-recommendation flow, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Redundant openings: p.3 'executive summary' + p.4 'key findings' + p.5 'executive summary' repeat the same 93% stat three times in three pages
72
narrative
Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 2 Globalization & future markets
“A solid trend-report deck with above-average action-title discipline and a real recommendation act, but it buries its thesis behind six slides of front-matter and hides its MECE pillar structure — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callout craft, not for opening or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening fails to lead with the answer — p.1-6 is all framing; an answer-first synthesis slide is missing
72
narrative
The future trends in ASEAN steel market
“A solid analytical consulting deck with strong action titles and a clean three-pillar recommendation, but it buries the lead and fades into a generic close — useful as an exemplar for action-title writing and MECE pillars, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Buried lead — thesis arrives on p.5 after a credentials slide (p.2) and a topic-label slide (p.3 'Key trends in...')
72
narrative
The Growing Challenge of Semiconductor Design Leadership
“Solid SIA/BCG advocacy briefing with strong quantified middle (p.8-13) but no recommendation and a slow open — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.14 sizes the prize ($450B) but never says what policies, leaving the deck as a problem statement without an answer
72
narrative
The Combustion Engine Business Model in the Age of Electromobility
“Solid analytical BCG-style build with strong action titles in the body, but it leads with topic-label summary slides and lacks a closing recommendation; use the scenario->strategy->archetype->value-matrix structure as a teaching example, not the executive bookends.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide; deck terminates on archetype analysis (p.13) and falls straight into front matter (p.14-16)
72
narrative
Southeast Asia’s digital consumers: A new stage of evolution
“A well-resourced thought-leadership report with a real S->C->A->R spine and many strong metric-anchored action titles, but the diluted opening, sprawling analytical middle and trailing close keep it as a solid B+ Storymakers exemplar rather than a top-tier one - useful as a teaching example for action-titles and pillar dividers, less so for opening/closing discipline.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Introduction' (pp 6-8) waste the opening real estate after a strong p5 hook