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 43 / 46
42
narrative
Attitudes towards a global plastic pollution treaty
“A clean, disciplined survey-data report that functions as a reference table — not a Storymakers exemplar; use it to teach what consistent callout discipline looks like, but flag it as the canonical example of question-titled, recommendation-less data dumping.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — the reader has to read the chart to learn the answer (e.g. p.20 'Ban chemicals used in plastic that are hazardous…?')
42
narrative
API Trends
“A short trend-briefing deck with decent data points but no narrative spine — useful as a counter-example showing how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act flatten a story into a list.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1-3 establish context but never name a Complication or Question, so the audience has no reason to lean in
42
narrative
Namibia National Budget 2024-25
“Topic-labeled government budget walkthrough with no SCQA arc and a non-existent close — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and answer-first structure fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title-as-topic on every slide — there is not a single declarative action title in 25 pages
42
narrative
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
42
narrative
Banking and capital markets trends 2020: Laying the foundations for growth
“A reference catalog masquerading as a deck — useful as a topic checklist for an internal audit team but a poor Storymakers exemplar; cite it only as a counter-example of how topic-labels and pagination suffixes erase narrative.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 88 slides and not one declarative finding in the title bar
42
narrative
rapporto di sostenibilita ey italia eng
“A competent corporate sustainability report with a genuinely MECE three-pillar spine and strong KPI callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar — topic-label titles, six slides titled '2022', and an appendix-fade ending mean it should be used as a counter-example for title rewriting and answer-first openings, not as a structural model.”
↓ Six different slides titled simply '2022' (pp.31, 41, 55, 57, 66, 77) — a critical title-quality failure that hides the insight on each page
42
narrative
ey ivca monthly pe vc roundup february 2023
“A competent monthly data roundup that is structurally a reference document, not a story — useful as an example of clean section dividers and metric-led callouts, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis-led opening, no Complication-Resolution arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or outlook close — deck ends in EY service marketing (p.26–31) and contacts, abandoning the reader after the data
42
narrative
IoT Big Data Value Creation
“An atmospheric thought-leadership deck that sets up a topic without ever delivering an answer — useful as a cautionary example of strong context with no Resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closes on 'challenges' (p.17) and a Clarke quote (p.18) instead of an answer
42
narrative
Global Economics Intelligence June 2023
“A disciplined regional macro digest with strong MECE pillars and number-bearing titles, but it is a descriptive intelligence product rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and pillar structure, not for story arc or close.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck terminates on Brazil data (p27) and logo (p28), with zero call to action or implications
42
narrative
Global Economics Intelligence Feb 2024
“A competent macro-monitor dashboard with strong quantitative titles in spots, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary tale of a geographic topic-dump with no arc, no tension, and no close — use it to teach what 'analytical build without narrative' looks like.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck terminates on a Brazil PMI chart (p.28) with no 'implications' or recommendation
42
narrative
Our Impact Plan 2024
“A solid ESG disclosure document with strong quantification and case-study discipline, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a topic-taxonomy dump that buries insights behind noun titles and ends in an appendix — use the case-study craft and quantified callouts as teaching examples, not the structure or titling.”
↓ No closing act — last analytical content is Materiality methodology (pp.83–86), then 19 pages of appendix; deck ends on 'Contacts' (p.106) with no recommendation or call to commitment
42
narrative
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself
42
narrative
femke de keulenaer
“A competent secondary-research evidence pack with strong stat callouts but no narrative arc or recommendation - useful as a teaching example of how good data dies inside topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act - the deck terminates at p.17 data and jumps straight to 'THANK YOU!' on p.18
42
narrative
Ipsos report Single use plastics
“A competently executed but narratively flat survey readout — strong as a reference document for the underlying data, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questions, the structure is a topic dump, and the deck ends without ever telling the reader what to do.”
↓ No synthesis or recommendation slide anywhere — the deck ends on p.31 with a producer-fee benchmark and jumps straight to methodology
42
narrative
Ipsos Global Advisor Predictions 2024 Full Report web 0
“A clean, navigable annual survey readout that respects MECE structure but reads as a data dump — useful as a reference document, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because titles describe questions rather than answers and the deck never lands a recommendation.”
↓ Titles are survey items, not findings — e.g. p.27 and p.35 still carry the literal stem 'Q. For each of the following, please tell me how likely or unlikely you think they are to happen...?'
42
narrative
International Women's Day 2023 full report
“A clean, well-segmented IPSOS research report that leads with findings but ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of disciplined section architecture and well-written callouts, but a cautionary example of titles-as-survey-questions and missing 'so what' resolution.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.16, p.17, p.18, p.19, p.20 all share the title 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?'
42
narrative
Halifax 2024 FINAL 3
“A rigorous IPSOS public-opinion data report with MECE bones but no story arc — useful as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act reduce even strong research to a reference document, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are ~80% topic labels with colon-suffix pattern (p.22–31 all read 'Confidence in Government Response: X'; p.44–62 all read 'World Influencers: X') — the reader has to decode every chart
42
narrative
3Q23 Investor Presentation GS
“A classic IR/positioning deck structured as a capabilities tour — strong quantified callouts and solid competitive benchmarks, but no SCQA arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles dominate; use p7–p10 as a teaching example of competitive benchmarking, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution — deck never poses the question it is answering, and never lands a recommendation or ask
42
narrative
The CMO Survey The Highlights and Insights Report February 2022
“A well-titled, well-segmented industry survey report — useful as a teaching example for declarative action titles and callout discipline, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis, no MECE argument, and no recommendation.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck ends at p.93 on a cover page with zero 'so what' for the CMO reader
42
narrative
Reinforcing the New South Wales Southern Shared Network (HumeLink) PADR – EY Market Modelling
“A technically rigorous market-modelling report in deck clothing — useful as a counter-example of how burying the answer and using topic titles instead of action titles weakens even strong analysis; do not use as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide anywhere — the 'preferred option' (Option 3C) is never stated as a headline, only implied through a highlighted table row on p.11
42
narrative
Doing business in the Philippines 2021
“A well-researched Philippines investment-reference document dressed as a consulting deck — strong on data density and section navigation, but topic-ordered rather than argument-ordered, so use it as an example of what to avoid when teaching Storymakers action titles and closing acts.”
↓ No answer-first framing — the document never states a recommendation or decision it is trying to drive; the closest thing is the preface platitude on p.3
42
narrative
Digital Transformation NJ
“A credentials-led government capabilities pitch with strong case-study evidence but no SCQA arc, no NJ thesis, and a «Thank you» ending — useful as a teaching example of why action titles and a closing recommendation matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No NJ-specific thesis or stakes anywhere in the first five slides — opens with Deloitte's credentials (p.2) instead of the client's situation
42
narrative
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A competent Deloitte Insights trends report with solid per-section rhythm and data discipline, but structurally a topic anthology that opens slowly, closes flat, and lets six 'just the number' placeholder titles slip through — use the intra-section frame→data→case→recommend pattern as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ Six slides carry titles that are just the trend number ('03' on pp.11, 29, 31, 33; '04' on pp.39, 42) — the single biggest Storymakers violation in the deck.
42
narrative
Sustainability Corporate Citizenship
“A compliance-grade ESG disclosure with a decent MECE pillar skeleton but no SCQA, no action titles, and no resolution — usable as a teaching example of pillar structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Front-matter bloat: 3 of the first 5 slides (cover, forward-looking disclaimer, ToC) before any substance, and 'Overview' (p.4) carries no thesis