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 46 / 46
25
narrative
Third Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard Gartner earnings/IR deck — competent as a reference document but a near-anti-pattern for Storymakers, useful only as a 'before' example to demonstrate why topic titles and appendix-heavy structures fail to tell a story.”
↓ Zero action titles across 27 pages — every header is a topic label, violating the most basic Storymakers principle
25
narrative
Second Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard investor-relations earnings deck — competent as an IR document but a weak Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a negative example of topic-label titling and appendix-as-ending, not as a structural model.”
↓ No thesis slide anywhere — reader must assemble the quarter's story from raw tables (p.4–13)
25
narrative
Second Quarter 2023 Results
“This is an earnings-disclosure deck, not a consulting argument — topic-label titles, no SCQA arc, and a closing half built entirely of reconciliation tables; useful as a counter-example of what Storymakers principles are designed to replace, not as an exemplar.”
↓ Zero action titles across 25 pages — 'Non-GAAP P&L', 'Research Metrics', 'Capital Structure and Allocation' are all category labels that force the reader to mine the chart for the point
25
narrative
20230316 scff portfolio details
“A portfolio-disclosure reference document masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and missing narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are 100% legal-entity labels rather than action titles — slides 3-12 all repeat variants of the fund name with no insight
22
narrative
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“This is an educational primer on how the U.S. federal courts work — not a consulting argument — and serves as a counter-example for Storymakers, useful only to illustrate what happens when a deck has topic labels but no thesis, analysis, or recommendation.”
↓ Action titles carry zero insight — every slide title is a noun phrase (e.g. p.10 'THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS', p.23 'The Appeals Process'); a reader skimming titles learns nothing.
18
narrative
gol 6
“This is a financial-product fact sheet with disclaimers, not a Storymakers consulting narrative — useful only as a counter-example of what happens when a document has no action titles, no arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are entirely absent — every page header is a product code or firm name (p1-11), so the deck has no insight scaffolding