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
89 matching · page 2 / 4
68
narrative
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing
68
narrative
Reinventing Construction Higher Productivity
“A solid MGI extract with strong quantified opening and clean action-title style, but repeated CONTENTS dividers and a hedged close make it a better teaching example for title-writing than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Three identical 'CONTENTS' slides (p.2, p.7, p.11) substitute for proper pillared dividers and break narrative momentum
68
narrative
Investor Day Presentation 140623 FINAL
“A disciplined, well-structured investor-relations deck with strong metric-anchored action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis at the open and dissolves into a topic label and dial-in numbers at the close — useful as a teaching example for the Growth Plan vertical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Opening defers the thesis: takes through p7 to land 'Raison d'Être' and through p17 to articulate the client-trust proof point — no answer-first slide in the first three pages.
68
narrative
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A competent survey-report deck with a real thesis and a landed recommendation, but structured as an analytical tour rather than a tight Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing in the motivation section (pp.14-17), not as a model for opening discipline or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis inside a 3-part executive summary (pp.5-7) instead of stating the answer on p.2 or p.3
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
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
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
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
65
narrative
The age of Generative AI: Unveiling the next frontier of digital procurement
“A solid McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong individual titles and a clean two-pillar back half, but a context-heavy opening and a soft 'Closing note' close make it a useful teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening (pp.1–5) is pure context with no thesis — reader must wait 5+ slides for the point
65
narrative
Intelligent banking
“A solid evidence-rich KPMG thought-leadership report with a defensible Enable/Embed/Evolve framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong habits — topic-label titles, buried thesis, vendor-pitch close — so use the middle phase structure as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Action titles are largely topic labels — 'Workforce concerns' (p.25), 'Barriers to progress' (p.10), 'Key considerations' (p.31) — forcing the reader to dig into the body to find the insight
62
narrative
Solving fashion’s product returns
“A British Fashion Council research report dressed as a deck — strong evidence, well-quantified problem, and excellent recommendation/case-study pairing, but inconsistent action titles and a placeholder-titled call-to-action mean it is a useful exemplar for analytical build-up and case-study integration, not for Storymakers structural discipline.”
↓ ~14 slides use the deck title 'Solving Fashion's Product Returns' as the slide title (pp.8, 19, 21, 26, 35, 42, 55, 59, 60, 64, 81, 82, 85, 87), forfeiting the action-title slot entirely.
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
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
Digital CFO Results of the Oliver Wyman Study
“A competently chaptered survey readout with above-average action titles, but it presents findings rather than telling a story — useful as a teaching example for declarative metric-led titles, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening: it takes until p.8 to surface a real finding; pp.1–7 are all setup
62
narrative
ey e book the green transition
“A competently structured EY thought-leadership trilogy with clean MECE pillars and quantified analysis, but it reads as three parallel essays with a topic-labelled opening and a slide literally titled 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for sectional build-up and recommendation slides, not for answer-first narrative or memorable closes.”
↓ No answer-first opening: the executive summary at p2 ('Addressing the climate crisis and accelerating the green transition') is a topic restatement, not a thesis — readers must wait to p5 for the first real claim
62
narrative
US Credit Card Issuer Performance 1Q 2023
“A competent McKinsey quarterly data brief with a strong answer-first opening and well-titled analytical charts, but it diagnoses without prescribing and trails off into valuation tables — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles and exec-summary craft, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on P/B ratio tables (p.35-37) with zero recommendation, next steps, or implication for issuers
62
narrative
Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional
“A well-opened, well-quantified problem statement that abdicates its own conclusion — use slides 1-7 as a teaching example for stakes-setting and action titles, but not as a complete Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.10 asks 'What will it take to improve productivity?' but the deck ends without answering
62
narrative
Education: 2022 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2023
“Solid analytical mid-section with disciplined action titles, but it is structured as a market-update report rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for data-slide titling, not for arc design or closes.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the deck buries its forward-looking thesis behind 12 slides of 2022 retrospection
62
narrative
20190312 Deutsche Bank MIT Conference
“A competent investor deck with disciplined action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens with label slides and fades out into repeated 'Announced Acquisitions' tables — useful as a teaching example for quantified titles and three-pillar structure, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Three near-identical slide titles 'Announced Acquisitions' at p.33-35 — a cardinal Storymakers sin of topic-labeling over insight
62
narrative
Retail resilience report
“A competent analytical research report with strong figure-level callouts in the middle, but it reads as a survey write-up rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of data callouts, not of narrative architecture, opening hooks, or closing recommendations.”
↓ No thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides — cover is a rhetorical question, p.3 is a topic label
62
narrative
UNC Chapel Hill Cost Diagnostic
“A competent Bain diagnostic with a clear options inventory but soft narrative framing and lazy pagination titles — use p.14 as a teaching example of an insight-bearing title, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: 5 slides of front-matter before the key findings on p.6
62
narrative
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
60
narrative
2020 ccb investor day
“A disciplined investor-day performance review with strong action-title and metric hygiene but no narrative tension and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of quantified action titles and MECE business-unit structure, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never acknowledges secular headwinds, fintech threats, or rate environment as tension to resolve — it reads as monologue, not argument
58
narrative
2019 APAC Hospital Priority Study Overview
“A competent analytical-overview deck with strong action titles in the body but a weak opening and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline writing on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution: deck ends on an open question (p.10) and contact slide (p.11) with zero recommendations or implications for MedTech players