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 34 / 46
55
narrative
European Banking Barometer 2015
“A competently written industry barometer with strong per-slide action titles and a tight three-message exec summary, but it buries no recommendation and ends on 'Contacts' — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles and connector-title chaining, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or implications slide — the deck ends on p44 data and then 'Contacts'/'Appendix', with zero call-to-action
55
narrative
2022 Global Alternative Fund Survey
“A competently-titled survey report that delivers data point-by-point but has no opening thesis and no closing recommendation — useful as a benchmark for action-title craft on individual pages, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — the deck ends at p.48 on an ESG data point and cuts to contacts, violating the R in SCQA/S→C→A→R
55
narrative
Q4 FY 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent investor-relations earnings deck with strong action titles and a clean lead-with-the-answer opening, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for the title-craft of slides 7-17 — not the structure, which lacks pillars, complication, and is overwhelmed by a 29-slide appendix.”
↓ 63% of the deck (29/46) is appendix — narrative drowns in reference material
55
narrative
Q3 2024 Fixed Income Call presentation
“Competent IR update deck with a front-loaded thesis and clean main/appendix split, but it's a status report not a Storymakers arc — use the NII/rate-hedge block (p.8-10) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA tension — deck is an all-good status update with no complication to motivate the analysis
55
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2025 Presentation
“A textbook earnings-deck opening married to an appendix-heavy tail — use p.2–p.6 as a teaching example of thesis-first framing, but not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation behind a premature appendix divider.”
↓ Premature 'Appendix' divider at p.20 buries the actual close (p.21 '2025 financial targets' recommend, p.22 shareholder distribution commitment) inside what readers will skip
55
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Presentation
“Competent investor-relations earnings deck with a quantified opening and disciplined callouts, but organised by reporting taxonomy rather than narrative — use p.2-5 as a teaching example of leading with numbers, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Segment section (p.15-19) titles are pure nouns — 'Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank' — forcing the reader to the callouts to extract the story
55
narrative
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
55
narrative
Client Creditor Overview July 2023
“Competent sectioned investor/creditor update with strong action titles in the strategy block but no SCQA arc and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for callout-title alignment, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on 'Sustainability at Deutsche Bank' (p.29) → footnotes → disclaimer, with no recommendation, ask, or memorable close
55
narrative
Arion Bank Fireside chat slides
“A competent investor-update deck with strong quantified action titles and clean macro framing, but it is analytical reportage rather than a Storymakers narrative — use pp.7–10 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication or tension: the deck never names what is at stake or what decision the audience must make
55
narrative
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
55
narrative
Third-party governance and risk management The threats are real
“A data-rich Deloitte survey report with a clear diagnostic thesis ('execution gap') but no Resolution act and too many topic-label titles — use pp.22/26/28 as examples of good action titles, not the overall deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on technology analysis (p.35) then jumps straight to bios/contacts with zero recommendations or next-steps slide
55
narrative
Private company outlook: Productivity
“A competent but inert survey-findings report with above-average action titles and a strong opening stat — use it as a teaching example of declarative titling, not of narrative arc, because it has no Resolution act and ends on boilerplate.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — p.12 is just another finding, then p.13 is boilerplate
55
narrative
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A well-scaffolded research report masquerading as a deck — use its MECE divider structure and evidence mix as a teaching example, but not its titling discipline or its missing recommendation act.”
↓ Action titles are question labels, not insights — ~20 of 29 slides reuse the section question verbatim, forcing the reader to mine the callout for the point
55
narrative
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway
55
narrative
Georgia Medicaid 1115 1332 Waiver
“A competent proposal-format deck with strong credentialing moments but no narrative arc and no ask — useful as a Storymakers counter-example of how 'Phase X: topic' titling and a 'Questions & Discussion' close flatten an otherwise substantive engagement plan.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never states Georgia's specific complication or the answer before diving into methodology
55
narrative
Foodservice Market Monitor
“Analytically rigorous market monitor with above-average action titles, but structured as a data compendium that buries its single recommendation before a tool pitch — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for Storymakers arc design.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.4, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38) substitute for real MECE section dividers and break narrative momentum
55
narrative
Executive Compensation at Deloitte Delivering global insight and expertise
“A competent capabilities brochure with a few strong benchmarking action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is mid-tier — useful to teach title-writing in the middle section, not to teach narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No complication or 'so what' — the deck presents market facts (p.3-7) without telling the reader why these trends threaten or pressure them
55
narrative
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
55
narrative
Deloitte Global Treasury Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with clean pillar structure and strong data, but not a Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach MECE sectioning and data callouts, not narrative arc or action titling.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.20 on a trend observation before 'Contact us'
55
narrative
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
55
narrative
2021 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey Report
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with strong quantified callouts but interrogative topic titles and a contact-us ending — useful as a teaching example of insight-rich captions trapped inside a question-driven structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are questions, not answers — p.8, p.9, p.10, p.11, p.12, p.14, p.15, p.17, p.18, p.20, p.21, p.22, p.23 all use the 'What/How...?' pattern, forcing the reader to hunt the callout
55
narrative
2019 Holiday Survey of Consumers Keeping the good times rolling
“A competently titled but structurally flat research-findings deck — use its slide-level action titles and quantified callouts as teaching examples, but not its architecture, which buries the recommendation and ends on a methodology slide.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — the 'How to win the holidays' section (p.29-31) is only 3 slides and describes high-spender demographics rather than prescribing retailer actions
55
narrative
200917 Credit Suisse Basic Materials Conference
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong action titles and quantified proof points, but it advertises a 4-pillar framework it never follows and ends in a financial appendix instead of a recommendation — use its titles and case studies as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends in financial dashboards (pp17-20) rather than a recommendation, next steps, or recap of the investment thesis
55
narrative
Capgemini Group Presentation 2022
“A competent corporate brochure deck with an elegant three-pillar spine and a clever linked-title device, but not a Storymakers exemplar — it delivers identity, not argument, and should be used to teach pillar architecture and title chaining rather than narrative arc or calls to action.”
↓ No SCQA: there is no Complication or Question — the deck moves straight from 'who we are' (p.3) to 'what we do' without naming a client problem