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 36 / 46
55
narrative
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
55
narrative
UAE Banking Pulse
“A competent analytical pulse report with strong declarative titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — use p.4–p.6 as a teaching example of insight-bearing action titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — the deck ends on a KPI recap (p.7) then straight into glossary
55
narrative
Saudi Arabia Banking Pulse Quarter 3, 2022
“A competent quarterly-pulse research note with strong action titles on individual slides, but it's a KPI walk-through, not a story — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and callouts, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck ends on a data table (p.18) and glossaries, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
55
narrative
A&M Valuation Insights – German vs. European Banks
“Tight, well-titled analytical brief with strong headline+driver titles but no thesis opener or recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full S→C→A→R narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.5 is labeled key_takeaways but reads as another data slide, and p.6 jumps straight to contacts
55
narrative
Transform Special Situations Index
“Short analytical index-release with a strong hook and mostly declarative titles but no resolution - use p.1-p.2 as an opening-hook exemplar, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act - deck ends on p.7 sector data with zero recommendation, implication, or 'what leaders should do'
55
narrative
A&M Valuation Insights November 2023
“A competent quarterly valuation update with strong slide-level action titles but no overarching story — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and metric-anchored callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or 'answer first' slide — the thesis of the report is never stated up front
55
narrative
Pulse of Change Index
“A well-titled survey-findings summary with a strong analytical core but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified hooks, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a data point (p.10) and methodology (p.11), with zero 'what to do about it' recommendation
55
narrative
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“A well-titled macro chart pack masquerading as a narrative deck — use pages 5, 10, 13 and 15 as teaching examples of declarative action titles, but not the overall structure, which sets up tension then trails off into an indicator appendix with no recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.56 (credit-risk analysis) then p.57 About us, with zero recommendations, scenarios, or watch-items for the executive audience the TOC promised
55
narrative
Everest Group Trust and Safety Services PEAK Matrix Assessment 2025
“A reprint of a third-party analyst evaluation rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides titled 'Accenture profile (page X of 8)' (p.5-12) — pagination is not a title and erases the insight on each page
55
narrative
Banking on AI Banking Top 10 Trends for 2024
“Well-researched trend-report masquerading as a deck — strong figure titles and metrics make it a useful teaching example for evidence-driven slides, but the enumerative 10-trend structure and buried thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No BLUF / pyramid principle — the deck never leads with an answer; the exec summary is on p.45 of 48, not p.2
52
narrative
Deloitte Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but conventional RFP-orals proposal — earns partial credit for an early thesis (p.4) and a quantified timeline title (p.6), but defaults to a methodology walk with topic-label phase titles, muddled Phase Three repetition, and a closing that fades into Q&A and 'About Deloitte'; useful as an example of RFP scaffolding, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing is essentially absent — p.16 'QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION' followed by p.17 'About Deloitte' with no recommendation, ask, or decision-required slide
52
narrative
WHAT THE FUTURE: WELLNESS
“An Ipsos editorial trends magazine masquerading as a deck — strong hook and a usable 'four tensions' framework, but the question-as-title habit and 15-slide quote appendix make it a counter-example for Storymakers, not an exemplar.”
↓ Question-titles dominate (p.6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) — the reader has to do the synthesis the deck should be doing
52
narrative
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Methodology Report
“A credentialed methodology report with a clean two-pillar structure and strong quantitative spine, but it buries the answer and ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for sound MECE pillars, not for narrative arc or opening/closing craft.”
↓ No thesis up front: pages 1-7 are entirely scene-setting; the headline number a reader should remember is never stated in the opening
52
narrative
THE IPSOS REPUTATION COUNCIL
“A well-evidenced research-anthology report with strong stat-anchored slides but no overall narrative spine or closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title discipline on individual data slides (p.9, p.14), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or CTA — deck ends on a Quickfire data slide (p.26) and three appendix pages, breaking Storymakers' resolution requirement
52
narrative
TEF Application Evaluation 2019
“Solid descriptive evaluation report with strong insight-bearing analysis titles, but it lacks SCQA tension and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative architecture.”
↓ No resolution or call-to-action — the deck ends mid-analysis on p.27 ('ALL 36 STATES AND THE FCT WERE REPRESENTED…') and rolls straight into the appendix
52
narrative
Simple & Digital Customer Experience Model
“A conceptual framework walkthrough on NPS/CX with strong individual action titles in the analytical middle but no narrative arc, no opening thesis, and no closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (pp.5, 9, 13), not for deck structure.”
↓ Opening five slides contain zero thesis statement - two covers plus three framework intros
52
narrative
Scalar calibration For Life insurance business
“A competent two-part technical memo with disciplined callouts but topic-label titles and an appendix-buried structure — useful as a teaching example for callout writing and case-study framing, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Action titles default to noun phrases ('DESIGN DECISIONS: …', 'COUNTRY-SPECIFIC DETAILED ANALYSIS – …') instead of insights, forcing the reader to extract the point from the callout.
52
narrative
Saudi Arabia Banking Pulse
“A competent quarterly metric tour with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it lacks a thesis-led opening and any closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing discipline, not for SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No recommendation, outlook, or 'what to watch' slide — the deck dies into a glossary at p.24-28
52
narrative
ROAD TO RESILIENCE
“A competently structured annual survey readout with rich data in the callouts but topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how to convert callouts into action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five consecutive slides titled 'INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHTS' (pp.12-16) signal a topic dump, not a MECE pillar; each should carry its sector name and an action verdict
52
narrative
IPSOS HEALTH SERVICE REPORT 2024
“A competent global-survey data release with MECE pillars and strong headline numbers, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case — topic-label titles and a missing resolution act make it a reference for analytical structure, not narrative.”
↓ Action titles are essentially absent — pp.7, 20–22, 24, 30–40, 42–47 use the verbatim survey question as the title, forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
52
narrative
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“Solid McKinsey-grade primer/landscape deck with strong numbers and case examples, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong lesson - use individual slides (p.31, p.35, p.27) to teach quantified action titles and case framing, not the overall structure, which lacks Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No 'so what': there is no recommendation slide, no call to action, no decision the audience is being asked to make - the deck stops, it doesn't conclude
52
narrative
modern retirement monthly report en
“A polished UBS client-education guidebook with strong MECE lifecycle pillars but weak SCQA narrative and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for framework-driven structure, not for Storymakers storytelling.”
↓ No SCQA arc — deck never frames a complication; it jumps from 'why' (p.4) to framework (p.5) to lifecycle education with no tension to resolve
52
narrative
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
52
narrative
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030: Megatrend 1 People & Society
“A disciplined, data-rich trend compendium with above-average action titles, but a weak Storymakers exemplar — no upfront thesis, no MECE pillar dividers, and a close that degenerates into three identical business-development CTAs; teach from individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ Three back-to-back CTA slides (p.69-71) carry identical titles and identical callouts — collapses the close into a marketing loop instead of a recommendation