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
635 matching · page 4 / 27
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
SOUTHEAST ASIA’S GREEN ECONOMY 2024
“A thorough, well-pillared climate-intelligence report with a real S-C-A-R spine and strong analytical titling in the middle — use it as a teaching example for MECE section structure and stakeholder-segmented CTAs, but not for openings or closings, since the thesis arrives on p.16 and the calls to action are buried before a 30-page country appendix.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: first 5 slides are pure front-matter and pp.6-9 are four sequential forewords before any analytical content
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 2019 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A well-structured annual market monitor with strong action-title discipline and a memorable mnemonic pillar framework — useful as a teaching example for action titles and section spines, but not for closing the loop, since it ends on description rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the analytical build peaks at p.44 abstraction then dissolves into back matter (pp.45-49)
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
The CEO’s Roadmap on Generative AI
“A well-structured three-pillar BCG executive perspective with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it opens slowly and ends in a checklist rather than a recommendation — use pp.5, 14, 15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Resolution is thin — p.31 'companies can adopt the following policies today' is a generic checklist, and p.32 is a team-bio slide; there is no synthesis slide restating the pillar-level recommendations
72
narrative
Impact of IRA IIJA CHIPS Clean Tech
“A tight, answer-first policy-impact deck with strong quantified action titles but a softened arc (complication after analysis) and a topic-label closing — use p.3-p.6 as a teaching example for headline writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Complication slides (p.7 'Pre-legislation challenges', p.8 'Remaining challenges') land after the impact sizing, weakening the SCQA tension that would normally precede the analysis
72
narrative
World Economic Forum Digital Transformation Initiative: In collaboration with Accenture
“A competent WEF/Accenture summary deck with a strong answer-first opener and a clean four-pillar analytical spine, but let down by topic-label titles and a closing that names a destination instead of issuing a recommendation - useful as an example of pillar architecture and quantified callouts, not of Storymakers-grade action titles.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not claims - p.5 'Asset lifecycle management' and p.6 'Grid optimization and aggregation' force the reader to hunt for the insight in the callouts
72
narrative
The disability inclusion imperative
“A well-evidenced thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and clean pillar rhythm, but it labels rather than argues in its titles and fizzles into inspiration instead of a concrete call to action — use the business-case section (p.10-17) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the whole deck.”
↓ Three separate slides (p.3, p.4, p.36) reuse the generic title 'The disability inclusion imperative' — title repetition signals topic labeling, not action titling
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
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
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
Strategy at the Pace of Technology
“Solid analytical Accenture build with a textbook two-pillar MECE structure and a real recommendation slide, but a flabby front matter and a closing-divider whimper keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use p.15-22 as the teaching example for pillar dividers, not the opening or close.”
↓ Two slides (p.4, p.6) carry the identical deck-title 'Strategy at the pace of technology' as their action title - wasted real estate
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
Innovate or Fade European businesses need to address the technology deficit to turn the tide
“A solidly structured three-pillar thought-leadership deck with a quantified hook and MECE prescriptions, but it buries its call to action in a one-line conclusion — use p.13/p.17/p.25 as a teaching example for numbered pillars, not as an example of how to close.”
↓ Closing is anemic: p.29 'Conclusion' with no numbered actions, deadlines, or owner — the deck dies before the appendix
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
Gen AI amplified
“A well-sourced, well-opened thought-leadership deck with a discernible SCQA spine but a muddled third act and a rhetorical-not-actionable close — a useful teaching example for hook-writing and data-backed executive summaries, but not a Storymakers exemplar for framework discipline or call-to-action.”
↓ Post-recommendation slides p.17-18 re-open diagnostic questions ('Automation or augmentation?', 'The critical role of clinical leadership') after the framework has been delivered — breaks the S→C→A→R cadence
72
narrative
Blueprint for Service Success
“A competently structured consulting deck with a real S-C-A-R arc and a strong segmentation frame, but weakened by topic-label titles and a buried thesis — use its segmentation and roadmap slides as teaching examples, not its opening or titling.”
↓ Titles frequently fall back to figure labels ('Figure 1a', 'Figure 2c', 'Figure 5') instead of stating the insight the figure proves
70
narrative
10th Operations Efficiency Radar
“A competent annual-survey report with a clear A→B→C→D skeleton and quantified titles, but the seven-industry template repetition and 22-slide appendix tail make it a Storymakers exemplar for action-titled data slides — not for narrative compression.”
↓ Industry walk-through (p.25–45) is formulaic: each of seven industries gets the same quote→value-chain→reposition triplet, and the same canned callout 'If corporate functions spot the opportunities…' is recycled verbatim on p.27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45
70
narrative
Crisis Preparedness 2019
“A thesis-driven survey deck with above-average action titles and a clean bookend, but the four sections are topical rather than MECE and the 'do these 5 things' recommendation is referenced rather than delivered — useful as a teaching example for hooks and headline writing, not for resolution structure.”
↓ p10 and p20 use 'PwC Global Crisis Survey 2019' as the slide title — brand chrome where the insight should be (74% sought outside help; preparedness as competitive advantage)
70
narrative
Lebanon Economic Vision
“A textbook McKinsey government strategy report with a genuinely strong SCQA diagnosis chapter, but the 1,274-page length, procedural opening, and topic-label-heavy sector dives bury the storyline — use the first 22 slides as a teaching example of analytical build-up, and the rest as a cautionary tale on appendix-as-deck.”
↓ The 1,274-page total length is itself the biggest narrative failure — the story ends at p.149 and the remaining ~1,100 pages of appendix-as-deck dilute every editorial choice that came before
70
narrative
ipsos global trends 2021 report
“A genuinely well-titled, MECE-structured trends report that earns its analytical middle but fumbles the close — use slides 18–46 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the ending.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what': the deck ends on a rhetorical question (p.50) and a corporate slide (p.51) — readers leave without an action