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 4 / 31
72
narrative
Women @ Work 2023: 7 The Gender Equality Leaders are benefiting from doing it right
“A well-organized thematic research report with unusually strong section dividers and insight-bearing body titles, but generic 'Executive summary' and 'Our recommendations' bookends blunt both the opener and the close — use the section dividers and body slides as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Executive summary' (pp.3-5) and three titled 'Our recommendations' (pp.35-37) — the most important bookend slides use topic labels instead of insights
72
narrative
Building a Future-Ready Investment Firm
“A competently structured thought-leadership eBook with a genuine MECE backbone and strong case-study scaffolding, but weakened by topic-label titles and a repetitive four-slide close — use its pillar architecture as a teaching example, not its openings or closings.”
↓ 'What the experts say' is reused as a title on p.9, p.17, p.36, p.62 — a signal of lazy editorial craft for a consulting flagship
72
narrative
barclays disruptive technologies conference bayer crop science handout 2024.06.11
“A solid investor-conference handout with strong quantified action titles and a clear opening hook, but it tails off into appendix without an explicit recommendation — use the title craft as an exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or 'ask' slide before the appendix — slide 16 is the de facto close and it is aspirational, not directive
72
narrative
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“Solid analytical build with a genuinely strong tension hook on p.8, but the recommendation is under-developed and the close fades into annex — use the paradox framing and country-benchmark sequence as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slide p.22 is advisory-but-vague; no explicit 'what to do Monday morning' recommendation list
72
narrative
Artificial Intelligence: Ready to Ride the Wave?
“A polished BCG executive-perspectives deck with strong action titles and a clear opening thesis, but it ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation — use pp.3-4 and pp.14-20 as Storymakers exemplars for opening and action titles, not for closing structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck drifts from p.20 recommendation straight into appendix deep-dives with no 'next 90 days' or CTA
72
narrative
Achieving Supply Chain Resilience in a Volatile World
“A tight, disciplined executive perspective with a recognizable S→C→A→R arc, but the recommendation fizzles — useful as a teaching example for compact narrative structure, not for how to land a close.”
↓ p.9 recommendation title ends in a colon ('...policies that:') — the deck's punchline is effectively a setup line, not a resolution
72
narrative
Wilton Park Policy Brief 17102024
“A competent policy-brief structure with a disciplined before/after analytical spine and one genuinely memorable number, but front-matter-heavy opening and a soft, appendix-trailing close make it a good teaching example of analytical rigor rather than of Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: 4 of the first 5 slides are front-matter or generically-titled summary; no page in the first third states the recommendation
72
narrative
2021 Consumer Behavior Value Shake up
“A competent trend-report deck with strong declarative titles and a clear $2T thesis, but the ending repeats itself across three slides and the middle is a topic-tour rather than a MECE build — use the title craft and quote-slide rhythm as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Pages 18, 19, and 20 all orbit the same 'innovations powered by data' recommendation — p.18 and p.19 have essentially identical titles and callouts, which wastes the closing real estate
72
narrative
Engaging Your Organization to Deliver Results
“A competent thought-leadership talk with strong declarative titles and well-placed stats, but it lacks section dividers and a prescriptive close — use its action titles and stat-anchored slides as teaching examples, not its overall skeleton.”
↓ No section dividers across 17 pages — the MECE pillars of the engagement model are implicit and the reader has to reconstruct the structure
72
narrative
Altagamma 2017 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A polished Bain market-monitor with strong insight-bearing action titles and named thematic pillars, but under-tensioned and under-actioned — use pages 9-18 and 41 as teaching examples of quantified headlines and on-a-page synthesis, not as a Storymakers arc exemplar.”
↓ Weak complication: no slide frames the 'so what / what's at risk' — the deck jumps from context straight to analysis without a tension beat
72
narrative
Women-led startups losing across the board: from creation to funding, in all key European markets
“A title-driven BCG barometer with strong action titles and a real CTA, but a muddled middle and vague closing keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - use p.1, p.3-4 and the p.10-16 run as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.17-19 re-opens context and re-frames the problem after analysis, breaking the S->C->A->R flow and feeling like two decks stitched together
72
narrative
US Mail Volumes to 2020
“A classic BCG analytical build-up with excellent numeric action titles in the middle but a procedural opening and topic-labelled recommendation — use p9–p19 and p26–p33 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Procedural opening — p2–p6 are objectives/approach/segmentation with zero stakes; the 15% headline is delayed to p9
72
narrative
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition
“A solid analytical report with strong middle-act action titles, but it ends on a framework instead of a recommendation and hides its thesis behind scene-setting — use its analytical slides (p.8, p.22-25) as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ Resolution act is a framework, not a recommendation — p.32-33 tell brands to 'decide which role to play' without naming which roles or priorities
72
narrative
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 7th Edition
“A well-structured BCG/Altagamma research-insights deck with above-average action titles and a clean three-pillar body, but it buries its recommendation in a single closing slide — use it as a teaching example for pillar architecture and quantified titles, not for answer-first storytelling.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the deck takes until p.31 to surface recommendations, and even then the title ('several priority investments') is a hedge rather than a claim
72
narrative
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
72
narrative
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
72
narrative
AI at Work APAC
“A solid BCG survey-insight deck with strong action titles and a real tension, but it buries the complication mid-deck and ends on a topic-labeled imperatives page — use pp.5-15 as a teaching example for declarative analytical titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ The tension slide (p.11) arrives at slide 11 of 22 — the 'fear' complication should enter earlier to tension the optimism narrative built in pp.4-10.
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
Port of LA Clean Truck Program
“A solid 2008 BCG business-case deck with a competent analytical spine and one exemplary action title at p.15, but the buried thesis and post-conclusion option dumps make it a teaching example for analytical rigor, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Structural misplacement: 'Agenda' divider at p.17 after the 'Conclusion' at p.16 inverts deck logic — option deep-dives (p.18-20) should precede, not follow, the recommendation
72
narrative
Value untangled Accelerating radical growth through interoperability
“Solid research-report-as-deck with a strong opening hook and disciplined three-part recommendation, but it buries the call-to-action and lets title quality drift in the back half — use the opening (p.4-6) and the recommendation pillar (p.26-32) as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit CTA or 'next steps' slide — closes on a thesis restatement (p.37) then jumps to methodology
72
narrative
The age of AI: Banking’s new reality
“A textbook-MECE consulting report with disciplined pillar structure and good evidence, but action titles default to topic labels and the close fades — use the section architecture as a teaching example, not the title-writing or the landing.”
↓ Action titles often duplicate section names ('Lead with value' x3, 'Close the gap on responsible AI' x2) — the deck tells you the topic but not the insight
72
narrative
Resiliency in the making
“Competent consulting thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and three-pillar structure, but weakened by redundant titling and a missing call-to-action — use the opening bookend (p.2-3) and case-study pairing pattern as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Resiliency in the making' is reused as a slide title on p.18 and p.26 — wastes two action-title slots on branding repetition
72
narrative
Reimagining the Agenda
“A competently structured three-act survey readout whose analytical middle is a solid Storymakers teaching example, but whose missing thesis-up-front and collapsed recommendation act make it a cautionary tale for closings rather than a full exemplar.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: cover (p.1) and TOC (p.2) don't state the answer, so the reader waits until p.11 to see the recommendation framing
72
narrative
Ready for take-off Why niche markets are the next big thing
“A competent thought-leadership white-paper-as-deck with a real S-C-A-R skeleton and strong evidence, but undermined by repeated topic-label CTAs and a missing concrete close — useful as a teaching example for evidence callouts, not for action-titling discipline.”
↓ Three identical 'What can today's business leaders do?' titles (p.16, p.20, p.26) — wasted real estate, no insight in the title