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 28 / 46
58
narrative
The future of M&A 2022 M&A Trends Survey
“A competent survey-report deck with quantified findings but weak Storymakers hygiene — reuse for teaching callout-writing and framework slides, not for action titles, pillar architecture, or closings.”
↓ Title reuse across 4-6 consecutive slides (e.g. 'Beyond the basics' p.13-18, 'What is your place on the playing field?' p.31-37) destroys slide-level action-title discipline
58
narrative
The Future of Food Challenges & opportunities
“Competent data-rich industry report with a clear three-theme framing but weak Storymakers craft — use its metric-anchored analytical slides (p.13, p.26, p.28) as teaching examples, not its overall arc or titling discipline.”
↓ No answer-first opening: thesis is diluted across p.4-8 and never crystallized into a single provocation or recommendation slide up front
58
narrative
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
58
narrative
Leadership: Driving innovation and delivering impact The Deloitte Global Chief Procurement Officer Survey 2018
“A competent annual survey report with MECE pillars and good benchmarking, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends in reference content — useful as a section-architecture exemplar, not as a model for opening, closing, or action-title craft.”
↓ Recommendations compressed into a single slide ('Action starts here', p.35) and placed before the industry/regional appendix — the call to action is structurally buried
58
narrative
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
58
narrative
Global Business Services Performance improvement
“A thought-leadership whitepaper in deck form — usable as a 'numbered-guide scaffolding' example but not a Storymakers exemplar because it skips the answer-first opening, uses imperative topic titles instead of insight titles, and breaks its own six-step MECE promise.”
↓ Action titles are imperatives ('Develop…', 'Focus on…', 'Extend…') rather than insight-bearing declaratives
58
narrative
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
58
narrative
Accelerated Access Review UK Mapping
“A structurally MECE but narratively incomplete analytical mapping — useful as an exemplar of parallel-pillar taxonomy and case-study titling, but a cautionary tale on closing: the deck stops before the recommendation and should not be taught as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on Methodology/Glossary/Limitations (pp.103-108) with zero recommendations, owners, or sequencing of the 12 opportunities teased on p.10
58
narrative
2020 Deloitte Human Capital Trends: Government & Public Services Insights
“A disciplined three-pillar framework deck marketing a Deloitte+Oracle HCM service — structurally MECE but narratively flat; useful as a teaching example of parallel section architecture, not of action-title writing or resolution.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic labels ('Purpose', 'HR imperatives', 'Oracle Cloud HCM Enabling Capabilities' reused verbatim on p.10, p.15, p.20) — a reader skimming titles cannot reconstruct the argument
58
narrative
id19 growth in wealth management
“A competent investor-day update with strong quantified middle-section analytics but a stapled three-division structure, generic dividers and summaries, and no opening thesis or closing ask — useful as a teaching example of good action-title writing in the analytical core, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — slides 1–4 are cover, disclaimer, divider, and bullet highlights; the audience never gets a single-slide answer up front
58
narrative
original
“A competent investor-relations deck with a stated thesis and solid supporting data, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc — no Complication, no Resolution, and topic-labeled data slides — so use it to teach how quantification should support a thesis, not as a model for narrative structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never articulates what challenge, risk, or decision the audience must resolve; it is a confidence monologue
58
narrative
unlocking growth creating tech ecosystems
“A well-researched, MECE-disciplined regional ecosystems report whose analytical chapters are teachable but whose titles, opening thesis, and sponsor-led close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the parallel Edinburgh/Manchester build, not the narrative frame.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights: 'Executive summary' (p.4), 'Key recommendations' (p.5), 'Edinburgh: Tech investors' (p.18) — the reader cannot skim the action titles and get the argument.
58
narrative
barclays ceo energy power conference 2018
“A competent investor-conference deck with pockets of strong Storymakers craft (action titles p.6/p.7/p.14, quantified callouts p.9-p.13) but no SCQA spine and a topic-label closing — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening delays the thesis: disclaimer (p.2) + tagline (p.3) + framework stub (p.4) + identity (p.5) burn four slides before any insight
58
narrative
EFX+ +Barclays+Credit+Bureau+Day+Presentation+2023
“A respectable investor-day deck with strong KPI-driven action titles but a broken ending and missing pillar structure — use slides 7 and 13 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing is broken: filler slide (p.10) + 'Appendix' divider (p.11) precede the real key-takeaways (p.12) and headwind chart (p.13), so the deck ends without a landing
58
narrative
Barclays Q1 2025 Review of Shareholder Activism 15 04 2025
“A data-rich quarterly market update with disciplined action titles and clean metrics, but it is a briefing — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it never converts its analysis into a recommendation; use slides 11-16 as teaching examples for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No tension/complication act — the deck reports 'activity up' but never poses the 'so what' question for a target company or board
58
narrative
Barclays Investor Presentation 2018
“Competent investor-relations deck with a solid pyramid opener and case-study spine, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.15-20 and select titles (p.40, p.34) for teaching declarative titling and evidence stacking, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a problem, risk, or gap the strategy is solving — weakening the SCQA arc
58
narrative
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
58
narrative
20230215 Q422 FI Investor Presentation vFFF
“A competently structured FY22 fixed-income investor deck with strong MECE pillars and good metric-driven titles in the Performance section, but it is an analytical pillar-walk not a Storymakers arc — use its section architecture and action-title patterns as teaching material, not its opening or close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — deck ends on ESG ratings (p51) then appendix, leaving the reader with no 'therefore'
58
narrative
ALTAGAMMA 2018 WORLDWIDE LUXURY MARKET MONITOR
“A data-rich industry monitor with disciplined numeric action titles and an early-stated thesis, but it buries the 'so what' under an analytical sprawl and fades into a vague purpose exhortation — use pp. 2, 11, 18 and 26 as teaching examples of insight titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Resolution collapses into one vague slide (p. 30 'Be driven by purpose...') with no prioritized moves or owner/timeline — weak 'so what' for a 30-page build-up
58
narrative
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
58
narrative
IT SERVICES The Rates of Success, Goals, and Future Priorities of Digital Transformations, by Sector
“A competent BCG benchmarking note with strong answer-first opening and insight-bearing analytical titles, but it ends without a recommendation and lets its core priority section collapse into topic labels — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the first half, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps act — deck ends on an ESG data slide (p.16) followed only by an author contact page (p.17)
58
narrative
COVID-19 BCG Perspectives Publication #5 with a focus on Revamping Organizations for the New Reality
“A hybrid briefing/publication with a strong analytical spine but no resolution act — use the economic-scenarios section (p.28-35) as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends at p.38 and drops straight into appendix (p.39-42), disclaimer (p.44), and contact (p.45)
58
narrative
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely
58
narrative
The Hotel Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent, well-chaptered Deloitte market-handbook that reads as analytical reference rather than persuasive story — use it as an example of MECE sectioning and hero-metric callouts, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or answer-first slide in the opening five — reader gets momentum stats but no argument