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
737 matching · page 3 / 31
72
narrative
Sustainability Study 2019
“Solid analytical mini-study with strong numerate action titles, but it is a research-findings deck dressed as a pitch — use pp.6–11 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc, which buries the recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/so-what slide — deck ends on firm credentials (p.13) and 'Thank you!' (p.14), throwing away the analytical build-up
72
narrative
What if inflation rates remain at current levels? Roland Berger Institute
“A well-titled, coherent thought-leadership paper with a clear point of view at the end, but it reads as an analyst's essay rather than a Storymakers deck — use pp.2-6 as a teaching example for action titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No 'so what' for a business audience — the deck diagnoses inflation but never translates implications into client actions
72
narrative
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 1 Demographic dynamics
“A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.”
↓ No tension/complication slide — jumps from context (p.5) straight to data (p.6) without naming why the reader should care now
72
narrative
RAIL FREIGHT IN CENTRAL ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST
“A well-disciplined two-region analytical study with strong action titles and parallel MECE structure, but it reads as two stacked reports rather than one Storymakers arc — use the title craft and country-deep-dive template as a teaching example, not the overall narrative shape.”
↓ Executive Summary slides p.11–13 are titled '(1/3), (2/3), (3/3)' — wasted real estate where the thesis should live
72
narrative
Automated Trucks The next big disruptor in the automotive industry?
“Solid analytical Roland Berger short-version with strong quantified action titles in the economics section, but it withholds the thesis up front and dribbles out the recommendation — use p.11-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No leading 'answer slide' — the core recommendation is never stated in the first 3 pages; p.2 'THE BIG 3' withholds rather than reveals
72
narrative
Women in Work Index 2019
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with disciplined action titles and a quantified hook, but it ends as a data reference rather than a call to action — use slides 5, 6, 14, 23 as Storymakers exemplars for action-title craft, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Resolution is under-built: only 2 slides (p.29 'five foundations', p.30 process diagram) carry the entire 'so what should we do' load after 25 slides of analysis
72
narrative
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
72
narrative
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
72
narrative
USPS Future Business Model
“A solid diagnostic-and-options McKinsey deck with a strong quantified middle act but a weak topic-dump close — use pp.3-19 and pp.22-29 as a Storymakers exemplar for SCQA build and quantified action titles, not the recommendation section.”
↓ Closing collapses into topic-label dumps (pp.33-37) — 'Pricing opportunities for USPS', 'Workforce opportunities for USPS' — none carry an insight
72
narrative
Outperformers High-Growth Emerging Economies
“A solid MGI-style analytical build with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it leads with description instead of stakes and ends on a URL — use the title-writing and case-study integration as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit complication/tension act — the deck moves from 'here is a fact' to 'here is the framework' without a 'why this matters now' beat
72
narrative
Mining Investment Fragile Conflict
“Compact 8-page executive brief with a coherent S→C→A→R spine and strong numeric titles, but it asks questions instead of leading with the answer and ends on a metaphor rather than a decision — useful as a short-form arc example, not as an opening or closing exemplar.”
↓ P.2 'Central questions' delays the thesis — opening should lead with the answer, not the questions
72
narrative
How nine digital frontrunners can lead on AI in Europe
“A well-sectioned McKinsey research report with solid quantification and a real recommendations chapter, but the thesis is buried behind a long definitional setup and the argument dissolves into a 14-page bibliography -- use it to teach sizing and sector deep-dives, not as an exemplar of opening or close.”
↓ Thesis is buried: the real 'answer' slide (p.20 'The nine digital frontrunners could play a leading role in Europe') sits 19 pages in, behind a 10-slide 'What is AI' definitional wade.
72
narrative
Global Hydrogen Flows
“A well-structured McKinsey analytical report with quantified action titles and a clean section spine, but it buries the recommendation behind framing language and trails into appendix — use the analytical middle (p.10-25) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide near the close — p.34-36 settle for framing ('regions have key roles', LNG parallels) instead of 'do these three things'
72
narrative
GenAI German Labor Market
“A well-evidenced analytical build with strong quantified action titles, but the story arc resolves twice and never closes — use the p.10-16 analytical sequence as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing call-to-action — deck trails off on benchmarking (p.23) and a logo slide (p.24) instead of a 'so what / now what' resolution
72
narrative
Steering Clear of the IT Danger Zones
“A competent short-form Executive Insights brief with strong action titles and a clean recommendation, but the bullish opening undercuts the 'danger zones' thesis — useful as an example of tight title craft, less so as a model of SCQA tension-setting.”
↓ Opening slides (p.2-4) lead with optimism and bury the 'danger' thesis the cover promises until p.5-6
72
narrative
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
72
narrative
keep moving forward
“A well-disciplined sales-marketing deck with strong MECE pillar architecture and quantified hooks, but title craft and the closing CTA are too soft to serve as a Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar structure as a teaching example, not the titles or the close.”
↓ Several titles are topic labels rather than insights — p.5 'Start here', p.9 'Today / Tomorrow', p.12 'Assessing your environment today' bury the so-what
72
narrative
20250311 jpm conference presentation
“A competent investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean closing arc, but front-matter-heavy and missing explicit MECE pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.9, p.13), not for overall structure.”
↓ 27% of the deck (p.1-4) is front matter before the thesis lands — disclaimer/glossary/agenda crowd out narrative real estate
72
narrative
2022 global technology
“Solid investor-day technology narrative with disciplined action titles and quantified callouts, but it reads as a capabilities tour rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.4-10 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication — p.4 frames expense growth as 'driven by investments' (a positive), missing the chance to set tension before resolving it
72
narrative
1Q24 GTM update 3.01.24 Jackson
“A polished JPM market-outlook chartbook with exemplary action-title writing and a clean macro-to-recommendation arc, but missing MECE dividers and a real call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure — 18 consecutive 'analyze_data' slides risk reading as a chartbook dump
72
narrative
ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en
“A tight, well-titled analytical comparison deck (EA vs US tariff impact) that exemplifies strong declarative action titles but lacks SCQA framing on the bookends — use its action-title discipline as the teaching example, not its overall narrative scaffolding.”
↓ No explicit thesis/executive-summary slide in the opening — the reader must assemble the argument from p.2 onward
72
narrative
Eyepoint Goldman Sachs June 10 2025
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong quantified action titles on the data slides but a weak complication and a duplicated section spine — use p.20-21 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (p.15 and p.22 both titled 'Phase 2 VERONA Clinical Trial in DME') signal a broken or copy-pasted spine, not MECE pillars
72
narrative
Inclusion and Diversity Survey Make It More Than A Mantra
“Solid analytical survey deck with disciplined action titles in the middle but a thin resolution - useful as a teaching example for cornerstone-framework reuse and section chaptering, not for closing the loop from stakes to recommendation.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.30) with a generic title and no enumerated levers, despite p.29 promising '4 key opportunities for differentiation'.
72
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q4 2023
“A disciplined investor-relations deck with a clean two-act arc and metric-laden action titles — a good exemplar of answer-led analytical writing, but weak on Complication and pillar scaffolding, so use it to teach title craft and quantitative spine rather than full SCQA narrative design.”
↓ Weak 'Complication' act — p.13 'Adapting to a world in transition' is the only tension slide and it's abstract ('Ready to seize opportunities') rather than naming specific pressures