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 5 / 31
72
narrative
January Macro Brief Special edition: 2024 outlook and top 10 macro trends
“Solid analytical brief with strong action titles and a disciplined trend-plus-recommendation pattern, but the absence of a closing synthesis and MECE sub-grouping makes it a good Storymakers example for title craft and pairing logic, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck stops at trend #10 (p.39) and jumps straight to the 'About Accenture' bio (p.40), so the reader leaves with ten recommendations and no hierarchy
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
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
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
70
narrative
The Reinvention of Retail Banking: How focused business models can unlock value
“A competent strategy& thought-leadership pamphlet with a recognisable S-C-A-R spine and a strong recommendation triad, but the framework core and section numbering wobble enough that it works better as a teaching example for editorial titles and closing structure than as a clean Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 03 -> 05 between p.9 and p.16 with no visible 04 divider, breaking the MECE promise of the pillar structure
70
narrative
2024 icc men’s t20 world cup economic impact report
“A competent answer-first economic-impact report with strong action titles and a clean two-pillar structure, but it lacks a Complication and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-led openings, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — the deck dribbles to an end at p.29 with a media-value stat, then a disclaimer
70
narrative
SDG Guide for Business Leaders
“A competent McKinsey playbook with a strong three-pillar spine and mostly declarative titles, but it opens with two TOCs and ends with templates instead of a recommendation - use the INSPIRE/ENGAGE/IMPACT structure as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Two tables of contents back-to-back (pp.2 and 4) signal weak editorial discipline before the deck even begins
70
narrative
2022 consumer community banking investor day
“A disciplined, well-anchored investor-day portfolio review with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft and section navigation, but not for end-to-end SCQA narrative because it lacks a Complication and a synthesis close.”
↓ No Complication act: 106 pages without a single slide framing a real threat, gap, or 'what we got wrong' — the macro/credit slide at p.54 ('rapidly changing macro environment') is the closest, but it is immediately neutralised rather than developed into tension.
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
70
narrative
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
70
narrative
Introduction to Bain and Report on Resilience
“A well-argued Bain keynote with a memorable hook and a complete S->C->A->R arc, but a slow credentials-first opening, an unfulfilled 'Five Myths' promise, and a limp 'Thank you' close keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - useful for teaching declarative titles (P7, P19) and proprietary-index positioning, not for teaching deck architecture.”
↓ First four slides are Bain credentials/speakers/divider - the real narrative doesn't start until P5 and the thesis doesn't crystallize until P7
70
narrative
Future of Sales Marketing Executive Perspectives
“Solid BCG executive-perspectives piece with excellent imperative-led action titles and a clean recommendation block, but the 10-slide context run-up, absent MECE dividers, and whimpering close-into-appendix make it a better teaching example for title craft than for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ 10 slides of context (p2-11) before the pivot at p12 — too long a setup for a 22-page executive perspective
70
narrative
Rethinking the course to manufacturing’s future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with genuine MECE pillar discipline and a solid closing arc, but too many topic-label titles and a delayed thesis keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use its pillar structure and closing triplet as teaching material, not its opening.”
↓ Thesis is delayed: 3 front-matter slides plus 2 context slides mean the core claim isn't fully framed until p.5–7
70
narrative
Value untangled Amplify speed to value through interoperability
“A solid Accenture research report with an intact SCQA spine and good quantified evidence, but it opens slowly, lets recommendation titles collapse to topic labels, and closes on a restatement rather than a call to action — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure and case-study placement, not for opening hooks or closes.”
↓ Opening burns five slides on context before the thesis lands at p9 — no answer-first hook
70
narrative
The productivity push Powering the UK’s performance with five digital capabilities
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership piece with an exemplary MECE pillar section (p.14-30) but a marketing-style close — use the five-capability build as a teaching example of parallel pillar structure, not as a model for opening hooks or consultative recommendations.”
↓ Repetitive topic-label titles in the capability deep-dives ('Industry view', 'Capability in action' repeated 5x each) instead of slide-specific insights
70
narrative
Commercial payments, reinvented Your blueprint for accelerating payments revenue growth
“A data-rich Accenture market-landscape report with a workable S-C-A-R arc and a strong numeric hook up front, but the blueprint promised in the title gets only four slides and no explicit call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for evidence density and opening thesis, not for balanced act structure or recommendation craft.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 4 slides (p.33-36) after ~20 slides of diagnosis — imbalanced for a blueprint deck
68
narrative
Warehouse Automation
“A competent banker/consultant thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and a clean sizing spine, but it is an analytical build-up that buries the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and market sizing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.17-20 in credentials, team bio, and disclaimers — there is no recommendation, decision frame, or 'what to do next' slide
68
narrative
Towards the unified secondary market: The evolution of distribution channels and evaluation of Asset Tokenization Benefi
“A competent EY thought-leadership deck with a strong analytical middle and a quantified opening, but it ends as a service pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension-building, not for closing structure.”
↓ Four 'Content' dividers (p.6, p.10, p.12, p.18) labeled identically — wasted opportunity to name MECE pillars
68
narrative
The economic contribution of Western Australia’s oil and gas industry
“A competent advocacy mini-report with disciplined action titles and a strong benefit-translation closer (p.7), but it lacks a recommendation and any complication beat — useful as an example of tight quantified storytelling, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on community-benefit translation then jumps to appendix at p.8
68
narrative
Sovereign Debt Restructuring
“A competent policy-brief deck with one strong, repeated quantified insight, but it buries the thesis behind heavy front matter and topic-label timelines - useful as a teaching example for repeated-stat reinforcement and case-comparator structure, not for opening or MECE pillaring.”
↓ Front matter consumes 21% of the deck (pp.1-3 cover/disclaimer/TOC) before any insight lands
68
narrative
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
68
narrative
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“Textbook BCG analytical-build deck — MECE pillars, disciplined benchmarking and a hammered $70M number — but it buries the answer for 26 slides and fizzles into a victory-lap close, so use the chapter structure and exec-summary cadence as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried thesis: 26 slides before the $70M number lands — opening sells the mandate, not the answer
68
narrative
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
68
narrative
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action