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
374 matching · page 3 / 16
72
narrative
2024 Global Investor Survey
“A disciplined survey deck with exemplary action-title craft but a weak landing — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative architecture or closings.”
↓ No answer-first / executive summary slide — the key recommendations don't surface until p.11 of 16
72
narrative
January Macro Brief Special edition: 2024 outlook and top 10 macro trends
“Solid analytical brief with strong action titles and a disciplined trend-plus-recommendation pattern, but the absence of a closing synthesis and MECE sub-grouping makes it a good Storymakers example for title craft and pairing logic, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck stops at trend #10 (p.39) and jumps straight to the 'About Accenture' bio (p.40), so the reader leaves with ten recommendations and no hierarchy
72
narrative
Hyper-disruption demands constant reinvention
“A well-scaffolded analytical report with a legible S-C-R arc and mostly declarative titles, but it buries the ask in a sprawling sub-pillar-less recommendation act and ends with summary rather than CTA — use the opening framing and data-forward titling as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Seven slides use the 'A quick take on...' construction (p.9, p.11, p.24, p.26, p.30, p.32, p.33), a topic-label pattern that undercuts the otherwise declarative title standard
72
narrative
Building Sustainable Organizations
“A competent thought-leadership report with an early thesis and clear three-pillar spine, but the case-study run and closing undersell the recommendation — use the opening (pp.2-5) and problem-framing (p.11) as Storymakers exemplars, not the back half.”
↓ Case-study titles on pp.21-24 are company names, not extracted lessons — no insight portability
72
narrative
Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021
“A well-structured commissioned value-quantification report with a strong BLUF opening and MECE essential/enriches pillars, but it is an analytical exposition rather than a Storymakers exemplar - it teaches pillar design and quantified action titles, not how to close with a recommendation.”
↓ No Resolution / CTA: deck ends on a gaming case study (p.27) then methodology - missing a 'what this means for NBN Co / policy / retailers' closing slide
70
narrative
2022 consumer community banking investor day
“A disciplined, well-anchored investor-day portfolio review with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft and section navigation, but not for end-to-end SCQA narrative because it lacks a Complication and a synthesis close.”
↓ No Complication act: 106 pages without a single slide framing a real threat, gap, or 'what we got wrong' — the macro/credit slide at p.54 ('rapidly changing macro environment') is the closest, but it is immediately neutralised rather than developed into tension.
68
narrative
Warehouse Automation
“A competent banker/consultant thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and a clean sizing spine, but it is an analytical build-up that buries the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and market sizing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.17-20 in credentials, team bio, and disclaimers — there is no recommendation, decision frame, or 'what to do next' slide
68
narrative
The economic contribution of Western Australia’s oil and gas industry
“A competent advocacy mini-report with disciplined action titles and a strong benefit-translation closer (p.7), but it lacks a recommendation and any complication beat — useful as an example of tight quantified storytelling, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on community-benefit translation then jumps to appendix at p.8
68
narrative
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“A rigorous government-commissioned diagnostic with strong quantified evidence in the middle, but it buries the recommendation under appendices and over-relies on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for Storymakers narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses into a single 'Next steps' slide (p.69) followed by 36 pages of appendix — no recommendation slide, no executive ask
68
narrative
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
68
narrative
Process Automation: A quickly growing market with structural tailwinds and investment opportunities
“Competent L.E.K./Harris Williams M&A market briefing with a strong opening hook and declarative analytical titles, but the resolution dissolves into a teaser rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for opening and parallel-pillar analysis, not for closing.”
↓ Ending is a teaser, not a recommendation — p21 'look for additional reports' substitutes a marketing CTA for an investor takeaway
68
narrative
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
68
narrative
07 investorupdate2018 pc
“A competent investor-update deck with a thesis-up-front opening and quantified support, but flat pillar structure and several topic-label titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3-4 and the quantified callouts as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ Several pure topic-label titles — p.8 'Corporate & Institutional Clients', p.12 'Loan portfolio', p.19 'Financial targets', p.20 'Key messages' — squander the action-title slot
68
narrative
South Africa Economic Outlook 2024 Turning short-term crises into opportunities for business value creation and societal
“Solid thematic-essay deck with disciplined action titles but no closing synthesis — useful as a teaching example for sentence-style titles, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis or explicit call-to-action — p.10 is a contacts page, not a 'so what' slide
68
narrative
What if the eurozone were to enter a recession? Roland Berger Institute
“A tightly-written analytical brief with exemplary action titles but no explicit MECE dividers and no recommendation slide; use it as a teaching example for sentence-titles, not for full story-arc structure.”
↓ No section dividers — the four-mechanism MECE (investment, layoffs, consumption, government) is invisible without reading every title
68
narrative
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
68
narrative
Trend 2050 Economics and Business
“A high-quality analytical compendium with exemplary action-title craft and rigorous pillar logic, undermined by invisible section transitions and a sales-pitch closing — use pp6-83 as a teaching example for action titles, but not the opening or closing arc.”
↓ Closing pp85-87 is a generic three-part CTA ('Let's talk... 1/3, 2/3, 3/3') with identical 'Learn how Roland Berger can help' callouts — no concrete recommendations or implications synthesized
68
narrative
Trend 2030 Scarcity of Resources
“A high-quality trend compendium, not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp6-16 as a teaching case for metric-bearing action titles, but its methodology-led opening, hidden pillars, and thin recommendation tail make it a poor model for full deck architecture.”
↓ Methodology-first opening: pp1-4 sell the Compendium product before any insight; thesis arrives at p17
68
narrative
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 4 Climate change & ecosystem at risk
“A solid trend-research deck with strong numerate action titles in the middle, but it opens with throat-clearing and lands with generic recommendations — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for SCQA structure.”
↓ First 5 slides are meta-context about the Trend Compendium rather than a thesis or hook — no SCQA opening
68
narrative
Megatrend 2 Health & Care
“A well-titled, evidence-rich trend compendium with a clean SCQA setup and a real recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantitative callouts, but its 40-slide undivided analytical middle makes it a weak structural exemplar of MECE pillar architecture.”
↓ 40+ consecutive analyze_data / industry_trends slides (pp.12-54) with no breather, summary, or pillar divider — reads as a topic dump rather than a story
68
narrative
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
68
narrative
Transport & Logistics Barometer
“A competent PwC barometer report with a clean numbered structure and strong evidence, but it reads as an analytical briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of declarative M&A action titles (p.9–11), not as a model of opening hooks or closing calls to action.”
↓ Opening (p.1–4) wastes four pages on cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider before any thesis appears, and the Summary on p.5 is labelled 'Summary' instead of stating the answer
68
narrative
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
68
narrative
PwC's 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey
“A well-signposted research-survey deck with strong action titles in its analytical core but a missing resolution act — use pillars 1–3 as a teaching example for MECE structure and action-title discipline, not the closing.”
↓ ~10 slides reuse the report name '22nd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the slide title (p.9, 11, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 37, 42), abdicating the action-title discipline