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 5 / 46
72
narrative
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
72
narrative
Capturing opportunities today, reinventing for tomorrow
“A competently structured three-act CEO-survey deck with a real recommendation page but weak title craft and a buried hook - useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline, not of action-title writing.”
↓ The killer stat (60% survival concern, p.3 foreword callout) is buried instead of opening the deck
72
narrative
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
72
narrative
Sustainability Risk Under Solvency II
“A well-structured analytical thought-leadership white paper with disciplined action titles but generic section dividers and a soft, non-committal close — use it as a title-quality exemplar, not as a model of MECE pillar structure or commercial closing.”
↓ Section dividers (p4, p9, p15, p27, p36) all repeat the same deck title — zero MECE pillar labels, so the reader has no map of the argument's structure.
72
narrative
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
72
narrative
EY Ireland FS Research Report
“A structurally disciplined research report with clean MECE pillars and a repeatable evidence→recommendation pattern — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for STRUCTURE and pillar consistency, but not for action titling or closing punch.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly topic labels — repeating '5.1 Technological Infrastructure & Innovation' verbatim across pp.13/14/15 wastes the most valuable real estate on the page
72
narrative
USPS Future Business Model
“A solid diagnostic-and-options McKinsey deck with a strong quantified middle act but a weak topic-dump close — use pp.3-19 and pp.22-29 as a Storymakers exemplar for SCQA build and quantified action titles, not the recommendation section.”
↓ Closing collapses into topic-label dumps (pp.33-37) — 'Pricing opportunities for USPS', 'Workforce opportunities for USPS' — none carry an insight
72
narrative
The new digital edge: Rethinking strategy for the postpandemic era
“A well-titled, data-rich McKinsey survey readout with a clean BLUF opening but a flat complication and a rhetorical rather than prescriptive close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified callouts, not for full-arc storymaking.”
↓ No section dividers or explicit pillar architecture; the three implicit themes (endowment p.8-10, talent/innovation p.11-12, leadership p.13-15) are never named as a MECE frame
72
narrative
The State of Luxury January 2025
“A competent McKinsey state-of-industry deck with strong insight-led titles in the analytical core but a generic opening and a thin recommendation tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts, not for narrative architecture or a punchy close.”
↓ No executive-summary / BLUF slide in the first three pages — the thesis has to be reconstructed from p.4 onward
72
narrative
Responding to COVID-19: Addressing the economic impact of the crisis
“A solid analytical-diagnostic deck with a memorable 4R framework, but the recommendation half hedges and the closing evaporates — use the diagnosis section (p.6-10) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Closing collapses to a one-word 'Conclusion' (p.32) with no prioritized recommendation or next-step ask — fatal for a leader-facing deck
72
narrative
Outperformers High-Growth Emerging Economies
“A solid MGI-style analytical build with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it leads with description instead of stakes and ends on a URL — use the title-writing and case-study integration as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit complication/tension act — the deck moves from 'here is a fact' to 'here is the framework' without a 'why this matters now' beat
72
narrative
Mining Investment Fragile Conflict
“Compact 8-page executive brief with a coherent S→C→A→R spine and strong numeric titles, but it asks questions instead of leading with the answer and ends on a metaphor rather than a decision — useful as a short-form arc example, not as an opening or closing exemplar.”
↓ P.2 'Central questions' delays the thesis — opening should lead with the answer, not the questions
72
narrative
Medical Affairs Japan
“A solid analytical-pillar deck with a clear thesis and MECE spine, but it ends without a recommendation - use pp.6-10 as a teaching example for SCQA setup and Yet-pivots, not for how to close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide near the end; p.20 merely restates the opening thesis
72
narrative
How nine digital frontrunners can lead on AI in Europe
“A well-sectioned McKinsey research report with solid quantification and a real recommendations chapter, but the thesis is buried behind a long definitional setup and the argument dissolves into a 14-page bibliography -- use it to teach sizing and sector deep-dives, not as an exemplar of opening or close.”
↓ Thesis is buried: the real 'answer' slide (p.20 'The nine digital frontrunners could play a leading role in Europe') sits 19 pages in, behind a 10-slide 'What is AI' definitional wade.
72
narrative
Global Hydrogen Flows
“A well-structured McKinsey analytical report with quantified action titles and a clean section spine, but it buries the recommendation behind framing language and trails into appendix — use the analytical middle (p.10-25) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide near the close — p.34-36 settle for framing ('regions have key roles', LNG parallels) instead of 'do these three things'
72
narrative
Generative AI: A boost for Operations
“A competent webinar deck with strong action titles and a clean close, but the four repeated agendas and question-style opener make it a useful teaching example for closing CTAs and case-study integration rather than a Storymakers exemplar of a single S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Four repeated 'Today's agenda' slides (p.3, 10, 15, 25) bloat the deck and signal a stitched-together webinar rather than a single argument
72
narrative
GenAI German Labor Market
“A well-evidenced analytical build with strong quantified action titles, but the story arc resolves twice and never closes — use the p.10-16 analytical sequence as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing call-to-action — deck trails off on benchmarking (p.23) and a logo slide (p.24) instead of a 'so what / now what' resolution
72
narrative
Creating Value with GenAI in Asset Management
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and clear pillars, but it teaches opportunity sizing better than it teaches SCQA — use slides 5/6/16 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: the asset-management-specific number doesn't appear until p.6 after generic CEO/industry context
72
narrative
Blueprint for Advancing Metabolic Health
“Solid McKinsey white paper with a clean SCQA spine and one exemplary action-title slide (p.7), but the recommendation is buried and the deck trails off into quotes - useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Closing collapses: p.17 'Time to put it all together' is the recommendation slide but its title is generic and there is no explicit ask, owner, or next step.
72
narrative
What is and how to navigate the RAS opportunity in LatAm?
“A competent thought-leadership primer with strong market-sizing titles but a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles and macro-to-micro flow, not for SCQA resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.13 names barriers and p.14 says OEMs 'need to consider specific market dynamics' without revealing what they are or what to do
72
narrative
Steering Clear of the IT Danger Zones
“A competent short-form Executive Insights brief with strong action titles and a clean recommendation, but the bullish opening undercuts the 'danger zones' thesis — useful as an example of tight title craft, less so as a model of SCQA tension-setting.”
↓ Opening slides (p.2-4) lead with optimism and bury the 'danger' thesis the cover promises until p.5-6
72
narrative
Holiday Season Insights How did retail apparel promotions perform in 2019?
“A competent analyst-first POV piece with strong action titles and quantitative spine, but the recommendation is underbuilt and the closing slot is handed to a capabilities pitch - use pp.4-11 as a teaching example for answer-first thesis and declarative titles, not as a model for the resolution act.”
↓ Three near-duplicate context/cover slides (pp.1, 2, 3, plus p.14) inflate front/back matter and delay the payoff
72
narrative
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
72
narrative
keep moving forward
“A well-disciplined sales-marketing deck with strong MECE pillar architecture and quantified hooks, but title craft and the closing CTA are too soft to serve as a Storymakers exemplar — use the pillar structure as a teaching example, not the titles or the close.”
↓ Several titles are topic labels rather than insights — p.5 'Start here', p.9 'Today / Tomorrow', p.12 'Assessing your environment today' bury the so-what