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
374 matching · page 2 / 16
72
narrative
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 1 Demographic dynamics
“A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.”
↓ No tension/complication slide — jumps from context (p.5) straight to data (p.6) without naming why the reader should care now
72
narrative
Aerospace supply chain: Resilience report 2024
“A disciplined survey-report deck with strong action titles and tight pacing, but the recommendation is under-built and the structure is a flat analytical run rather than a true Storymakers arc — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing or pillar design.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.13) with a generic 'adopt best-practices' message — no specific moves, owners, or sequencing
72
narrative
Global Consumer Insights March 2021
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, but the soft opening detour and a vague one-page close make it a strong example of pillar discipline rather than of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ Pages 4–6 sit between the cover and the framework reveal on p.7, delaying the promised 'four fault lines' structure and reading like orphan category data
72
narrative
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
72
narrative
The new digital edge: Rethinking strategy for the postpandemic era
“A well-titled, data-rich McKinsey survey readout with a clean BLUF opening but a flat complication and a rhetorical rather than prescriptive close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified callouts, not for full-arc storymaking.”
↓ No section dividers or explicit pillar architecture; the three implicit themes (endowment p.8-10, talent/innovation p.11-12, leadership p.13-15) are never named as a MECE frame
72
narrative
The State of Luxury January 2025
“A competent McKinsey state-of-industry deck with strong insight-led titles in the analytical core but a generic opening and a thin recommendation tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts, not for narrative architecture or a punchy close.”
↓ No executive-summary / BLUF slide in the first three pages — the thesis has to be reconstructed from p.4 onward
72
narrative
Outperformers High-Growth Emerging Economies
“A solid MGI-style analytical build with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it leads with description instead of stakes and ends on a URL — use the title-writing and case-study integration as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit complication/tension act — the deck moves from 'here is a fact' to 'here is the framework' without a 'why this matters now' beat
72
narrative
What is and how to navigate the RAS opportunity in LatAm?
“A competent thought-leadership primer with strong market-sizing titles but a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles and macro-to-micro flow, not for SCQA resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.13 names barriers and p.14 says OEMs 'need to consider specific market dynamics' without revealing what they are or what to do
72
narrative
Steering Clear of the IT Danger Zones
“A competent short-form Executive Insights brief with strong action titles and a clean recommendation, but the bullish opening undercuts the 'danger zones' thesis — useful as an example of tight title craft, less so as a model of SCQA tension-setting.”
↓ Opening slides (p.2-4) lead with optimism and bury the 'danger' thesis the cover promises until p.5-6
72
narrative
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
72
narrative
2022 global technology
“Solid investor-day technology narrative with disciplined action titles and quantified callouts, but it reads as a capabilities tour rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.4-10 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication — p.4 frames expense growth as 'driven by investments' (a positive), missing the chance to set tension before resolving it
72
narrative
2019 cib investor day ba56d0e8
“A well-built JPM investor-day showcase with disciplined MECE pillars and metric-rich action titles, but it is a results-defense deck rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.3–6 and the Markets build (pp.14–22) as title-quality and pillar-structure references, not as a model for narrative tension.”
↓ No SCQA complication — the deck never names a tension, threat, or strategic question, so every section reads as a victory lap rather than a resolution.
72
narrative
1Q24 GTM update 3.01.24 Jackson
“A polished JPM market-outlook chartbook with exemplary action-title writing and a clean macro-to-recommendation arc, but missing MECE dividers and a real call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure — 18 consecutive 'analyze_data' slides risk reading as a chartbook dump
72
narrative
ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en
“A tight, well-titled analytical comparison deck (EA vs US tariff impact) that exemplifies strong declarative action titles but lacks SCQA framing on the bookends — use its action-title discipline as the teaching example, not its overall narrative scaffolding.”
↓ No explicit thesis/executive-summary slide in the opening — the reader must assemble the argument from p.2 onward
72
narrative
ICO Class of 2017
“A tight, thesis-led analytical report with strong action titles in the middle, but it ends on a topic label instead of a recommendation — use pp2-10 as a teaching example of quantified action titles, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide — p11 'Key takeaways and outlook' is a topic label with a hedged VC-comparison callout
72
narrative
barclays disruptive technologies conference bayer crop science handout 2024.06.11
“A solid investor-conference handout with strong quantified action titles and a clear opening hook, but it tails off into appendix without an explicit recommendation — use the title craft as an exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or 'ask' slide before the appendix — slide 16 is the de facto close and it is aspirational, not directive
72
narrative
Barclays Global Financial Services Conference 2023
“A disciplined, action-title-led investor update with a clear three-pillar spine but a missing Complication and a soft close — use the title craft and pillar structure as a teaching example, not the full SCQA arc.”
↓ No Complication/tension slide — the deck jumps from Purpose (p.3) to Thesis (p.4) without establishing why change is urgent
72
narrative
20240220 Barclays UK Investor Update
“A competent investor-update deck with a clean pillar structure and a committed recommendation, but underpowered in complication-setting and answer-first opening - use pp.5-9 as a teaching example of MECE pillar-prefixed titles, not as a full narrative exemplar.”
↓ No explicit complication / 'why now' slide - the deck moves from context straight into framework, weakening narrative tension
72
narrative
The time for climate action is now
“A solid BCG thought-leadership piece with strong numerate action titles and a real S→C→R backbone, but the flat 7-action list and soft, appendix-tailed close make it a better teaching example for title quality than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Front matter bloat: p.1-3 all live in setup/context mode before the problem lands on p.5, burying the lede
72
narrative
Artificial Intelligence: Ready to Ride the Wave?
“A polished BCG executive-perspectives deck with strong action titles and a clear opening thesis, but it ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation — use pp.3-4 and pp.14-20 as Storymakers exemplars for opening and action titles, not for closing structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck drifts from p.20 recommendation straight into appendix deep-dives with no 'next 90 days' or CTA
72
narrative
Altagamma 2019 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A well-structured annual market monitor with strong action-title discipline and a memorable mnemonic pillar framework — useful as a teaching example for action titles and section spines, but not for closing the loop, since it ends on description rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the analytical build peaks at p.44 abstraction then dissolves into back matter (pp.45-49)
72
narrative
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
72
narrative
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
72
narrative
AI at Work: What People Are Saying
“A well-executed survey-findings deck with mostly strong action titles and a correctly placed recommendation slide, but it reads as an ordered sequence of findings rather than a Storymakers-style argument - useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a structural one.”
↓ No section dividers; 8 consecutive analyze_data slides (pp.4-11) flow without pillar signposting