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 37 / 46
52
narrative
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A well-organised, MECE sector outlook with solid action titles on body slides but no opening hook and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and pillar consistency, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Nine 'Key Takeaways' slides reuse the same non-insight title instead of stating the takeaway in the headline
52
narrative
Challenges abound Ongoing crises call for a proactive approach
“A quarterly research bulletin with a punchy opening hook and quantified data, but no Resolution and recycled titles in the middle — useful as a teaching example of how a strong Situation/Complication can be wasted when the deck never returns to the 'call to action' it promises.”
↓ P.6, p.7, p.8 all carry the same recycled title 'Automotive Disruption Radar – Issue #7' instead of the actual insight (EV offer growing, AI investment up, mobility jobs surging) — the insight lives only in the callout
52
narrative
pwc my electric vehicle sales review q4 2024
“A competent quarterly data review with a strong opening hook and a few sharp regional titles, but it functions as a reference document rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3 and p.7 as title-writing examples, not the structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends in four consecutive 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables (p.19-22), then bios and 'Thank you' (p.25)
52
narrative
Re-Imagine the Possible 2018/2019
“A topic-organized budget walkthrough with strong numerical content but weak narrative scaffolding — useful as a teaching example of how MECE pillars and quantitative anchors are necessary but not sufficient without action titles and an explicit thesis.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is cover/agenda/divider/divider/framework with no stated point of view
52
narrative
PwC’s 2019 actuarial robotic process automation (RPA) survey report
“A competent survey-results report with strong quantified callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how good data can be undermined by a missing close and absent action titles.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.7-10) share the title 'Use of RPA within different functions in the insurer (continued)' — a textbook topic-dump anti-pattern with zero MECE signaling
52
narrative
Merging with SPAC
“A competent client-education primer on SPAC mechanics with a strong opening market block but no thesis and no close — use slides 4-10 and 34 as teaching examples of action titles, and use the rest as a cautionary case in how topic-dump structure and '(cont'd)' titles erode a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Eleven slides reuse '(cont'd)' as their title (p.17-19, 21, 25, 27-29, 41, 47, 49, 51-53) — built for the speaker, not the reader, a Storymakers cardinal sin
52
narrative
Global Workforce Hopes Fears 2022
“A well-titled survey report dressed as a deck — use slides 4, 6, and 10-12 as examples of insight-bearing action titles, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.20 to appendix is an abrupt drop-off with zero implications for employers
52
narrative
GEM Outlook 2023-2027 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC outlook report with above-average action-title craft in the segment sections, but it reads as an analytical inventory rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides 9, 13, 17, 20 as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 02 → 04 (no section 03), signalling either lost content or a sloppy bolt-on of the GenAI module
52
narrative
Five global shifts megatrends
“A well-organized PwC point-of-view survey with disciplined parallel pillars but a buried thesis, recycled titles, and no call to action — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five identical 'Possible implications…' titles (p.6/10/14/18/22) — pure topic labels that waste the most-read line on every other slide
52
narrative
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
52
narrative
20230608 172439 CWCU 9YRZMYZ26FO0PKXJ.1
“A competent quarterly REIT investor update with strong, metric-driven action titles, but it is a topic-organised reporting pack rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides like p20, p16 and p5 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No complication act — the deck never names a problem, risk or strategic question, so there is nothing for the analysis to resolve
52
narrative
Consumers’ sustainability sentiment and behavior before, during and after the COVID-19 crisis
“A solid analytical survey readout with disciplined number-led titles, but it's a findings catalogue rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.5-8 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure, which lacks both Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck terminates on p.26 with a demographic finding instead of a recommendation or 'implications for FMCG' slide
52
narrative
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them
52
narrative
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
52
narrative
Consumers at 250
“A competently titled survey-findings report with a strong 'X vs. Y' pillar device, but it stops at analysis and never resolves into a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension framing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendations or 'so what' slide — deck dies on an industry data table (p.30)
52
narrative
Pulse of Fintech H1 2021
“A well-organized analytical reference report with strong stat-led titles in its core, but it is a market-data digest rather than a Storymakers deck — use its action titles and stat-led section dividers as a teaching example, not its overall structure or its non-existent close.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.66 data table then About/Contacts; zero 'so what should investors/operators do' slide
52
narrative
Our Impact Plan 2023
“A well-structured ESG/impact report with exemplary MECE pillar architecture but weak action titles and no call to action — use the section-divider structure as a teaching example, not the title craft or the closing.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (p.13 'Purposeful business', p.25 'Human rights', p.51 'Decarbonization', p.59 'Climate risk') — the action-title discipline is largely absent
52
narrative
Our Impact Plan 2022
“A competent ESG/CSR reporting document with parallel pillar architecture and strong quantified callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a cautionary case — topic-label titles, no SCQA tension, and a closing that trails off into governance and contacts; teach the pillar structure and KPI openers, not the narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps synthesis — the deck ends on p.51 'Governance' (an establish_context slide) and p.52 'Contacts', wasting the last impression
52
narrative
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
52
narrative
what worries the world december 2024
“A disciplined recurring data tracker with strong callout writing and clean pillar structure, but undermined by topic-label titles and no closing synthesis — use it as an example of how to write quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Title 'Current Economic Situation' appears on 9 consecutive slides (p.35–46) with no country or finding to differentiate them — readers cannot scan the section
52
narrative
KEYS Environment Emergency
“A multi-presenter Ipsos webinar package with strong individual data points but no spine — useful as a source of stat callouts and the 'Shield/Sword/Standard' framework, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it ends in a case-study trail-off and contains a mid-deck thank-you slide.”
↓ Mid-deck 'THANK YOU' on p.29 followed by 30+ more slides reveals this is stitched-together speaker segments, not one narrative
52
narrative
Ipsos World Refugee Day 2024 Global Report PUBLIC 0
“A competent global survey report with strong synthesis sentences but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for why action titles matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — p.11, p.12, p.17, p.18, p.30–34 all use 'Q. ...' verbatim where an action title belongs
52
narrative
Ipsos Populism Final February 2024
“A competent global survey readout with a strong paradox hook on p.3 that the rest of the deck fails to honor — usable as a teaching example of how survey-question titles and a missing recommendation act flatten an otherwise promising argument, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.35 title contains an unresolved template placeholder '[NOUN FOR PEOPLE FROM COUNTRY, PLURAL]' — a proofreading failure that undermines credibility
52
narrative
Ipsos AI Monitor 2024 final APAC
“A well-organized syndicated research monitor with one strong thesis hook (slide 2) and clean MECE pillars, but body titles are raw survey questions and the deck ends in methodology with no recommendation — use it as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 30 of ~36 content slides use raw survey-question text as titles instead of declarative insights (e.g., p.20, p.23, p.28, p.34)