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
130 matching · page 2 / 6
70
narrative
Introduction to Bain and Report on Resilience
“A well-argued Bain keynote with a memorable hook and a complete S->C->A->R arc, but a slow credentials-first opening, an unfulfilled 'Five Myths' promise, and a limp 'Thank you' close keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - useful for teaching declarative titles (P7, P19) and proprietary-index positioning, not for teaching deck architecture.”
↓ First four slides are Bain credentials/speakers/divider - the real narrative doesn't start until P5 and the thesis doesn't crystallize until P7
68
narrative
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
68
narrative
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal
68
narrative
What if the eurozone were to enter a recession? Roland Berger Institute
“A tightly-written analytical brief with exemplary action titles but no explicit MECE dividers and no recommendation slide; use it as a teaching example for sentence-titles, not for full story-arc structure.”
↓ No section dividers — the four-mechanism MECE (investment, layoffs, consumption, government) is invisible without reading every title
68
narrative
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
68
narrative
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
68
narrative
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
68
narrative
2019 Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear protagonist (Dynamics) and largely declarative titles, but the soft complication, over-reliance on quote slides, and uneven pillar signposting make it a useful exemplar for action-title craft — not for full Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Heavy reliance on quote_slides (p.3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20 — seven of 22 pages) substitutes voice-of-expert for analytical synthesis
68
narrative
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
“A rigorous DECC-commissioned diagnostic with answer-first framing and quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the gap' instead of 'here is what to do' — use pages 4, 12, 15, and 28 as Storymakers exemplars of metric-led titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on a conditional frame (p.61 'What you would need to believe...') and dissolves into appendix
68
narrative
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
68
narrative
2020 cb investor day
“A polished, on-message investor-day deck with disciplined action titles and a clean thematic spine, but it is a confidence narrative rather than a Storymakers SCQA arc — useful as an exemplar of title discipline and pillar sequencing, not as a model for tension-and-resolution storytelling.”
↓ No real Complication/tension — every slide reassures ('strong', 'well-positioned', 'substantial'), so the narrative lacks the SCQA pivot that would earn the resolution
68
narrative
IBV Research Report
“A solid three-pillar research report with the right analytical skeleton and a real recommendations close, but it buries its headline stat, under-uses section dividers, and leans on topic-label titles — teach the pillar structure, not the opening or the titling.”
↓ Headline stat (36% revenue/efficiency lift from analytics-led innovation) is buried on p.5 instead of driving the cover or exec summary
68
narrative
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
68
narrative
Q1 2025 Fixed Income Call
“Competent fixed-income investor update with a disciplined answer-first opening and strong main-body action titles, but it collapses at the close ('Summary and outlook') and leans on a bloated 25-slide appendix — use the p.2-p.14 arc as a teaching example for answer-first sequencing, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Weak close: p.15 'Summary and outlook' is a topic label with no stated outlook, no recommendation, and no memorable takeaway
68
narrative
Now decides next: Getting real about Generative AI
“A competent Deloitte thought-leadership report with a clean two-act skeleton and some strong action titles, but it buries its hook and repeats its section title as slide titles — use pp.9, 10, 22, 25 as examples of good declarative writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 4 pages on cover/TOC/foreword before any substantive claim; thesis never stated in first 3 slides
68
narrative
Deloitte 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world
“A well-architected research-trends deck with genuine MECE pillars and dense data, but it teaches as a framework lookbook rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its section structure as a model and its title writing as a counter-example.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels reused across 2-3 consecutive slides (e.g., 'Negotiating worker data' p.21-23, 'Activating the future of workplace' p.17-19) — readers can't skim the deck
68
narrative
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
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
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
ey people leaders forum 2025 presentations day1
“A disciplined, MECE-structured keynote with strong metric-bearing analytical titles, but it opens slowly and ends in a dinner invitation rather than a recommendation — use the three-pillar architecture and p.20-p.22 titles as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — closing flow p.28→p.29→p.30 dissolves into 'Seated dinner and networking'
65
narrative
The State of Fashion 2025
“An encyclopedic annual industry report with strong McKinsey-style action titles and disciplined per-theme SCQA, but it lacks an overarching arc and fizzles into pull-quotes and appendices — use the analytical sections (especially Sportswear pp.99-108 and the Global Fashion Index pp.129-141) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No synthesis slide before the appendix — pp.141-145 dribble into pull-quotes ('Fashion System', 'McKinsey Global Fashion Index') instead of a 10-theme recap or CTA
65
narrative
Tested, Trusted, Transformed An exploration of the Corporate Affairs Function and its Leaders
“A competently structured research report with a memorable title device and a strong Five Maxims close, but titles carry topics not insights and the middle lacks narrative tension — use the bookend thesis and Five Maxims as teaching examples, not the interior title discipline.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly questions or topic labels rather than insights (p.9, p.11, p.13, p.14, p.25) — a reader skimming the title stream cannot reconstruct the argument
64
narrative
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
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.