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 23 / 46
62
narrative
FY24 Results and Progress Update Presentation
“A polished, MECE earnings deck with disciplined action titles in the financial walk but no Complication and a recycled close — useful as a teaching example for top-down financial titling and divisional MECE, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication act — nowhere in the first 10 slides is a tension, headwind, or stakeholder doubt named, so the 'progress' story has nothing to push against
62
narrative
Barclays+Investor+Presentation+vFINAL
“A competent investor-conference deck with a real thesis (valuation disconnect) and good callout discipline, but 55% appendix, no pillar structure, and a reconciliation-table ending make it a fair example of analytical framing - not a Storymakers exemplar of narrative arc or closing.”
↓ 11 of 20 slides (p.10-20) are appendix material - the deck is structurally back-heavy and the storyline ends at p.9
62
narrative
Barclays US Consumer Bank 2024 Barclays Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report
“A competent research-bulletin deck with strong stat-led callouts but a weak narrative spine — useful as an example of numerical action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of SCQA structure or persuasive close.”
↓ Slide 5 has a non-title ('2024 Travel Rewards and Loyalty Report | 5') — a running footer mistaken for an action title, wasting a data-table slide
62
narrative
e-Conomy SEA Unlocking the $200 billion digital opportunity in Southeast Asia
“A strong answer-first sizing report with disciplined declarative titles and clean MECE pillars, but it stops at diagnosis — use p4-5 and the segment-sizing run as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.”
↓ No recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends on a fraud statistic (p33) then a duplicate cover (p34)
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
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
62
narrative
Accenture Post and Parcel Industry Research 2019
“A solid industry thought-leadership report with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts, but weak Storymakers exemplar overall — use sections 1–2 as a model for action titles and MECE build, not as a template for opening and close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 3–5 pages — reader must reach p.21 '5 SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES DETERMINE HIGH PERFORMANCE' to find the organizing answer
62
narrative
Syracuse University Diagnostic Report
“A credible Bain fact-base diagnostic with strong methodology framing but a sprawling middle and near-absent recommendation — use the setup (p.7-8) and two early insight titles (p.12-13) as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Buried thesis — no answer-first slide; the core tension (expense growth outpacing revenue) appears at p.12, not p.3
62
narrative
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
62
narrative
Winning on the Margins TeBIT 2023
“A competent BCG benchmark readout with declarative titles and a solid opening, but it buries its recommendation and ends on an observation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and S->C openings, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — p.14 ends on an observation, burying the call to action
62
narrative
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer
62
narrative
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights
“A polished annual research compendium with consistently strong action titles and an exemplary CX mini-arc (pp.58-77), but as a whole deck it is an eight-chapter trends catalogue rather than a single Storymakers argument — use the CX section as a teaching example of SCQA, not the overall structure.”
↓ No deck-level thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the first 5 pages — reader has to infer the argument from chapter titles
62
narrative
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
62
narrative
Perspectives on WMATA's ridership
“A competent analytical build-up that diagnoses the ridership problem well but ends on a question instead of an answer — useful as a teaching example of retrospective diagnosis and action titles, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation act: p.27 'What does this all mean for WMATA's ridership?' is the final content slide and it asks rather than answers
62
narrative
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“A solid insight-driven survey summary with a strong paradox hook and numerate titles, but it stops at analysis and never prescribes action — use p.3/p.11 as examples of tension-framing, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck stops at diagnosis (p.13) with no recommendation, roadmap, or 'what companies should do' slide
62
narrative
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
62
narrative
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
62
narrative
Global Restart Key Dynamics COVID-19
“A competent mid-crisis analytical update with strong insight-bearing chart titles but no story arc - use pp.10/16/24 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (pp.6 and 30 both titled 'Key dynamics of the restart') collapse the pillar structure and signal no MECE spine
62
narrative
Economic Impact of Ford and F-Series
“A polished BCG advocacy/impact report with exemplary action titles and pillar structure but no SCQA tension or closing recommendation — use slides 7–14 as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.27 with another benchmark slide, then disclaimer (p.28) and a Ford|BCG marker (p.29)
62
narrative
Climate Change: BCG’s Perspectives and Offerings
“An analytically strong, well-titled educational deck with a clean three-act spine that buries its own punchline - use p.17-p.25 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, but not as a structural exemplar because the promised 'Offerings' never land.”
↓ No answer-first slide - the thesis doesn't crystallize until p.7, and even then it's a problem statement not a recommendation
62
narrative
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017
“Rigorous, defensible public-sector budget-analysis report with a strong quantified thesis up front and clean MECE pillars, but it reads as a reference document rather than a Storymakers deck — use the exec summary (p.7-9) and impact rollup (p.118-127) as teaching exemplars, not the overall structure or the tail.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends on scenario table p.183 and appendix p.185-190, so the reader has no 'therefore, decide X' moment
62
narrative
BCG Investor Perspectives Series
“Solid BCG research pulse-check with strong declarative titles in the analytical middle (p.7–17) but a topic-label executive summary and an appendix-dump close — use the middle 10 slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the deck as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends with a 7-page table appendix (p.19–25) and a contact page (p.26), so the executive reader gets data without a 'what to do Monday morning'
62
narrative
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q2 2023
“A competent investor-survey readout with a strong answer-first opening and good action titles in the middle, but it is a data report, not a story — use p.3-5 and p.12 as teaching examples of front-loaded insight, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for executives' slide — deck ends at p.16 (ESG caveat) then falls into seven appendix data tables (p.17-23) and contact info
62
narrative
The Best Service Providers for Commercial Banks, 2025
“A competent analyst-report excerpt with a clean skeleton and one strong hook, but it buries the ranking, closes on a vendor placard, and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example of section architecture and the p2 hook, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Thesis (seven Horizon 3 leaders named on p15) is buried 60% of the way through the deck