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 26 / 46
58
narrative
The Inflation Reduction Act: Here’s what’s in it
“A competent McKinsey policy explainer with disciplined money-throughline and several strong quantified titles, but it is structurally an analytical primer — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never names a Complication or lands a Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — deck ends on p.11 fiscal chart then jumps straight to author bios (p.12)
58
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor 2021
“A solid, data-dense market monitor with disciplined action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a reference document not a story — use its individual analytical slides as title-writing exemplars, but not its overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening and no recommendation close — p.2 asks 'What is this document for?' and the deck ends on methodology (pp.41-44) with no 'so what / now what' slide
58
narrative
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality analytical monitor with exemplary action titles and quantified framing, but it reads as a reference almanac rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for title craft and data-comparison slides, not for arc structure or closing.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck ends on appendix/team bio (pp. 101–103) after a speculative AI tangent (pp. 99–100)
58
narrative
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
58
narrative
Global Energy Perspective 2022
“A competent McKinsey outlook with strong analytical titles per vector but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do' act — deck ends on the emissions gap (p.26) then jumps to 'Get in touch' (p.27)
58
narrative
Future Energy Landscape Netherlands
“A data-rich McKinsey market-outlook deck with strong quantified titles in the Netherlands section but a missing thesis up front, duplicate section dividers, and a non-committal close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and cost-curve evidence stacking, not for full SCQA structure.”
↓ Two section dividers (p.23 and p.28) carry identical text and neither names the trend it introduces — pillars are invisible to the reader
58
narrative
Emerging GenAI Use Cases Credit
“A competent McKinsey survey readout with strong action titles and a sharp opening tension, but it inverts its own ending and lacks visible MECE structure — use it as an exemplar for action-title writing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Closes on pain-points (pp.16-17) instead of recommendation — the 'what leaders do' slide (p.15) is mis-sequenced
58
narrative
ESG momentum: Seven reported traits that set organizations apart
“A competent McKinsey research-survey readout with strong action titles and clean leader-vs-laggard benchmarking, but it never delivers the 'seven traits' MECE structure its title promises and closes on the authors page instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ The titular 'seven traits' are never explicitly named or numbered — the reader has to count and infer them across p.5-p.11
58
narrative
Driving innovation at scale
“A McKinsey board-education deck with strong analytical mid-section and headline-grade data points, but it buries its recommendation in the appendix and opens with anecdote — use the fear-culture build (p.18–22) and the data-driven titles as exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is missing from the main body — p.24 closes on an open question, and the most persuasive numbers (2.4x profit on p.31, 97% outperformance on p.27, iQ CTA on p.32) are dumped into the appendix.
58
narrative
COVID-19 Business Recovery Vancouver
“A competent McKinsey scenario-and-learnings deck with disciplined three-pillar scaffolding and good quantified titles on data pages, but it buries its thesis at the open and dilutes its recommendation at the close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Opening is a slow burn — agenda on p.3 and a topic-label scenario chart on p.4 delay the thesis; no answer-first slide in the first 5 pages
58
narrative
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
58
narrative
Breaking Records Everything Brands needs to know to breakthrough and dominate the Chinese Market in 2024
“A boutique-agency pitch wearing a McKinsey label — has pillar scaffolding and a clever verbal bookend, but topic-labeled titles and a buried recommendation make it a useful teaching example of where a deck loses its Storymakers spine, not an exemplar to imitate.”
↓ Thesis is buried — first 5 slides establish context (¥13tn, $3.565tn, value-share chart) but never state what the audience should do; opening fails the 'lead with the answer' test
58
narrative
A pivot for Germany
“A competent survey-results readout with strong title hygiene but no narrative arc — useful as an exemplar of action-titled findings slides, not as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'Germany is optimistic' to recommendations without surfacing the threat the pivot answers
58
narrative
Impact of the US BIOSECURE Act on Biopharmas, Contract Services and Investors
“A competent, quant-anchored survey readout with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it sells its own findings short by ending in a capabilities pitch instead of a recommendation - use slides 7-8 as examples of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a capabilities slide (p.11) and a sales CTA (p.12) instead of a recommendation for biopharmas, CxOs or investors
58
narrative
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
58
narrative
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
58
narrative
Education: 2021 Deal Round-up and Trends to Watch Out For in 2022
“A competent analytical data round-up with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it is a briefing not a story — missing thesis, missing synthesis, and ending on a contact card instead of a recommendation; use slides 2, 4, 10, 13 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.15 data + p.16 'Connect with us' — there is no recommendation, no 'what to watch in 2022' payoff despite the title promising it
58
narrative
Brazil Education Technology Market L.E.K. Perspectives
“A competent analytical research deck with solid quantified findings but placeholder section titles and a watchlist-as-ending — useful as a teaching example of strong market-landscape action titles, not as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ Four separate 'Key observations based on the performance of the Brazil stock index…' slides (p.3, 4, 7, 10) with identical titles — placeholder section headers masquerading as takeaway slides
58
narrative
APAC Hospital Insights 2023
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and clean three-pillar MECE structure, but it ends in firm marketing instead of a recommendation — use sections 2-4 as a teaching example for action titles and pyramid sequencing, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No 'So what?' resolution slide — the deck ends at p.27 (last agenda divider) and jumps straight to firm credentials on p.28-30; no synthesis of implications for healthcare providers, MedTech, or pharma
58
narrative
Hydrogen applications and business models
“An exhaustive, well-titled reference FactBook with consultant-grade analytical rigor but a buried thesis and a missing resolution — use the business-case section (p.128-184) as a teaching example for evidence ladders, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or pyramid lead — the integrating answer ('heavy-duty transport is the most promising near-term H2 business model') sits on p.14-15 of a 192-page deck instead of p.3
58
narrative
The generative AI advantage in financial services
“A serviceable thought-leadership PDF with one strong action title and disciplined callouts, but structurally a topic-dump that buries its thesis and ends in a vendor pitch — useful as a teaching example of weak openings and noun-titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening is dead weight — p.1 cover + p.2 generic 'Introduction' burn two of the deck's ten pages without establishing stakes or thesis
58
narrative
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument
58
narrative
Global tech report 2022
“A competent thematic survey report with strong individual data slides but a weak Storymakers spine — useful as an example of section-divider rhythm and quote/case-study texture, not as a model for answer-first narrative architecture.”
↓ No answer-first opener: p.4 'The headline numbers' is a label and the thesis never appears in the first 5 slides
58
narrative
Familiar challenges new approaches
“A competent survey report with a clean three-pillar spine but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for chapter dividers and quote-slide pacing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Many data slides ship the raw 'Exhibit N: <question text>' as the title (p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.24, p.30) — the chart caption is doing the work an action title should