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 20 / 46
62
narrative
Surveyed nurses consider leaving direct patient care at elevated rates
“A well-titled analytical research brief with a strong opening hook but no real recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for SCQA story arc.”
↓ Closing is effectively absent — p.11's one-sentence recommendation is generic and disclaimer-styled, p.12 is bios
62
narrative
Secret of Transformations
“A solid McKinsey teaching/keynote deck with strong quantified evidence and a recognizable arc, but the interrogative titles, mid-deck survey detour, and missing recommendation make it a useful exemplar for analytical build-up — not for Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Survey for the audience' slides (p.8-13) interrupt the narrative and look like a workshop artifact, not a deck
62
narrative
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
62
narrative
New-business building in 2022: Driving growth in volatile times
“A well-quantified McKinsey survey readout with disciplined action titles but no resolution — use it as a teaching example for declarative numeric titles, not for narrative arc or closes.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on p.12 description, then acknowledgments (p.13)
62
narrative
MTA Financial Impact COVID-19
“A methodologically rigorous McKinsey forecast deck with strong precedent framing and a MECE revenue/cost spine, but it buries the $8.5B answer until p.33 and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for scenario analysis structure, not for Storymakers opening or action-title craft.”
↓ Buries the answer: the $8.5B total impact does not appear until p.33 of 38; opening is two disclaimers + cover + TOC with no executive summary
62
narrative
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription
62
narrative
IIF/McKinsey Cyber Resilience Survey
“A competent McKinsey survey deck with strong action titles in the diagnosis section but a buried thesis and a collapsed ending — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and quantified callouts, not as a model of full SCQA narrative architecture.”
↓ First 5 slides are all front matter and methodology; the thesis is buried — by p.5 a reader still doesn't know what the deck argues
62
narrative
Global Gas Outlook 2050
“Solid analytical brief with strong quantified mid-deck titles, but it is a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of action-title writing on data slides, not as a model for full story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.6 then dumps into model methodology and a credits slide
62
narrative
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
62
narrative
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
62
narrative
Digital Luxury Experience
“A solid mid-tier consulting deck with a clean three-pillar frame and strong analytical titles in the Experience section, but it opens slowly, under-delivers on Enterprise/E-future, and closes without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the middle, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the first five pages — the thesis is deferred until p.6 and never crisply stated
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
Covid 19: Briefing Materials
“A high-quality McKinsey briefing document with strong analytical craftsmanship and action-title discipline, but structurally a report not a story — useful as a teaching example for slide-level writing and quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Recommendation is buried at p.41-42 and limited to 'operating-model speed' — too narrow relative to the humanitarian, economic, and operational problems framed earlier
62
narrative
Chilean Hydrogen Pathway
“Competent analytical build with strong title-writing in the Chile-business-case core, but it buries its 25 GW recommendation mid-deck and ends in a numbered initiative dump - useful as a teaching example for data-bearing action titles, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide in the first 5 pages; the thesis (slide 46) lands at ~70% depth
62
narrative
Brazil Digital Report
“A solid analytical landscape report with disciplined section structure and several strong declarative titles, but it reads as a research summary rather than a Storymakers deck — use the talent section's titling as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends on 'In summary:' (p.42) and a thank-you (p.43), violating the SCQA 'Resolution' act
62
narrative
Battery materials demand and supply perspective
“A competent McKinsey market-perspective deck with strong quantified action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens without a thesis and closes on 'unknowns remain' plus a generic 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.4–9), not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.11 is titled 'Conclusion' — a topic label, not an action title — and offers no recommendation or next step
62
narrative
Infrastructure beyond COVID-19
“A well-titled, metric-rich sectoral reference document whose analytical sections would make a strong Storymakers teaching example for action titles and mini-arcs — but it fails as an argument because it ends on 'Future directions: Waste' instead of a unified national recommendation.”
↓ No overall closing synthesis — the deck terminates on 'Future directions: Waste' (p.187) then a disclaimer, burying the national recommendation that p.6-7 promised
62
narrative
Good as Gold: Resilience and Continued Attractiveness of the Global K-12 Sector
“A solid narrowing-funnel thought-leadership piece with mostly good action titles and a clean 3-pillar structure, but it buries the recommendation under a 9-slide identically-titled data dump — use the p.3-22 analytical build as a teaching example, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides (p.26-34) with the literally identical title 'Overall growth in the premium segment…(X of 9)' — the single biggest narrative failure, forcing the reader to do all the synthesis
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
KPMG global AI in finance report
“A competent thought-leadership research report with a clean four-pillar spine and good metric discipline, but it reads as an analytical survey rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as an example of section architecture and metric-anchored slides, not of action-title craft or SCQA opening.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never frames a complication or burning question before diving into framework (p.5) and benefits (p.8)
62
narrative
Agile Transformation
“A stat-rich KPMG survey report with a competent three-pillar diagnosis and good case-study cadence, but the thesis is buried at p.30, the close is a service pitch followed by 11 appendix pages, and pillars exist only in title prefixes — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored analytical builds, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ 11 of 42 pages (p.32-42) are appendix/country-background — over a quarter of the deck dumps undifferentiated country snapshots ('Background – Belgium', 'Background - Brazil', etc.) that read as raw survey output
62
narrative
2020 CEO Outlook COVID-19
“A competently themed survey-findings deck with a stated three-pillar frame but no recommendation payoff — useful as a teaching example of action-title statistics, not of full SCQA story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.21 'In summary' is reflective, not directive
62
narrative
malcolm barr jp morgan
“A competent analyst-style inflation primer with a sharp opening question and an early answer, but with no MECE pillars and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of lead-with-the-answer on p.2, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide: deck ends on a tangential question (p.19) and rolls straight into 3 Disclosures pages (p.20–22)
62
narrative
529 cpe
“A polished JPMorgan client-education reference deck with a solid analytical middle but a weak narrative frame — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and comparison tables, not for opening, closing, or signposting a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on disclosures (p.43-44) and a branded product page (p.45), with no 'so what should you do Monday' synthesis