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 6 / 27
68
narrative
07 investorupdate2018 pc
“A competent investor-update deck with a thesis-up-front opening and quantified support, but flat pillar structure and several topic-label titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3-4 and the quantified callouts as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ Several pure topic-label titles — p.8 'Corporate & Institutional Clients', p.12 'Loan portfolio', p.19 'Financial targets', p.20 'Key messages' — squander the action-title slot
68
narrative
South Africa Economic Outlook 2024 Turning short-term crises into opportunities for business value creation and societal
“Solid thematic-essay deck with disciplined action titles but no closing synthesis — useful as a teaching example for sentence-style titles, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis or explicit call-to-action — p.10 is a contacts page, not a 'so what' slide
68
narrative
Digital Auto Report 2023
“A well-titled, MECE-structured analytical report with strong action titles in the data section, but it front-loads 16 slides of consumer evidence and compresses the strategic answer into a single recommendation slide — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar dividers, not for narrative arc.”
↓ p.5-20 is 16 consecutive analyze_data slides with no internal section divider — feels like a research dump preceding the strategic story
68
narrative
Sustainability Study 2024
“A competently structured short-form thought-leadership brochure with a clear two-act spine and strong data callouts, but it under-delivers on its own 'four actions' promise and closes with a capabilities pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven storytelling, not for action-title discipline or closing craft.”
↓ The 'four key actions' promised on p.12 do not appear as four parallel slides — only p.13 and p.14 are visible, so the MECE promise is broken
68
narrative
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
68
narrative
Trend 2050 Economics and Business
“A high-quality analytical compendium with exemplary action-title craft and rigorous pillar logic, undermined by invisible section transitions and a sales-pitch closing — use pp6-83 as a teaching example for action titles, but not the opening or closing arc.”
↓ Closing pp85-87 is a generic three-part CTA ('Let's talk... 1/3, 2/3, 3/3') with identical 'Learn how Roland Berger can help' callouts — no concrete recommendations or implications synthesized
68
narrative
Trend 2030 Scarcity of Resources
“A high-quality trend compendium, not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp6-16 as a teaching case for metric-bearing action titles, but its methodology-led opening, hidden pillars, and thin recommendation tail make it a poor model for full deck architecture.”
↓ Methodology-first opening: pp1-4 sell the Compendium product before any insight; thesis arrives at p17
68
narrative
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 4 Climate change & ecosystem at risk
“A solid trend-research deck with strong numerate action titles in the middle, but it opens with throat-clearing and lands with generic recommendations — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for SCQA structure.”
↓ First 5 slides are meta-context about the Trend Compendium rather than a thesis or hook — no SCQA opening
68
narrative
Megatrend 2 Health & Care
“A well-titled, evidence-rich trend compendium with a clean SCQA setup and a real recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantitative callouts, but its 40-slide undivided analytical middle makes it a weak structural exemplar of MECE pillar architecture.”
↓ 40+ consecutive analyze_data / industry_trends slides (pp.12-54) with no breather, summary, or pillar divider — reads as a topic dump rather than a story
68
narrative
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
68
narrative
Barriers to FinTech innovation in the Netherlands
“Competent Roland Berger policy deck with clear three-act scaffolding and mostly declarative titles, but it under-builds the tension and fades into appendix instead of landing a call to action — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing structure.”
↓ No synthesis or call-to-action slide before the appendix — the deck ends mid-thought at p.31 and dumps 10 supporting slides
68
narrative
Automotive metal components for car bodies and chassis
“Competent Roland Berger market-study deck with clean MECE pillars and disciplined action titles in the analytical body - useful as a teaching example of trend-driven sizing, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it labels its executive summary, buries its punchline, and closes with firm marketing instead of a recommendation.”
↓ The most important number in the deck (EUR 15 bn hot-stamping by 2025) is buried in p.34's callout under a label title 'Implications and key takeaways' - should be the title
68
narrative
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry-research report with answer-first openings and quantified action titles on the analytics, but the recommendations and close are weak — use slides 7, 8, and 12 as Storymakers exemplars of declarative titling, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.14, p.15) carry the section-divider label as their action title, hiding the actual insight
68
narrative
Time to talk: What has to change for women at work
“A well-researched, pillar-structured PwC thought-leadership report whose evidence and callouts are strong but whose titles are topic labels and whose recommendation is a slogan — useful as a teaching example of MECE pillars and quotable data callouts, not of action titling or closing discipline.”
↓ Action titles are mostly nouns repeated across multiple slides — 'Transparency and trust' on p.8-11 and 'Strategic support' on p.12/15 — so a reader skimming titles cannot reconstruct the argument
68
narrative
Talent trends 2020 Upskilling: Building confidence in an uncertain world Findings from PwC’s 23rd Annual Global CEO Surv
“A PwC thought-leadership PDF with a recognizable narrative spine and a few genuinely strong action titles, but it dilutes its own argument with topic-label sub-sections and a soft, generic recommendation — useful as a teaching example for the p11/p14 titles and the 'More talk than action' tension move, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Numbered challenge slides p15-p18 collapse to topic labels ('What skills to teach', 'Paying for it') instead of carrying the insight in the title
68
narrative
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
68
narrative
PwC's 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey
“A well-signposted research-survey deck with strong action titles in its analytical core but a missing resolution act — use pillars 1–3 as a teaching example for MECE structure and action-title discipline, not the closing.”
↓ ~10 slides reuse the report name '22nd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the slide title (p.9, 11, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 37, 42), abdicating the action-title discipline
68
narrative
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“Competent short-form macro outlook with a textbook arc and two model action titles, but it buries the lead and asks rather than answers in the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for p.6-style titles, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening 3 slides (cover, outline, dashboard) bury the lead — no thesis stated in the first 5 pages
68
narrative
Navigating uncertainty: PwC’s annual global Working Capital Study
“A competently structured PwC thought-leadership report with strong quantified stakes and clean section architecture, but topic-label titles and a soft service-pitch close keep it firmly in the 'analytical report' lane rather than the Storymakers exemplar tier.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic nouns or 'Figure X:' captions — the deck reads like a report TOC, not a story
68
narrative
Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up
“A well-architected survey-report-as-deck with disciplined sectioning and a memorable Compliance Pioneer payoff, but action titles default to topic labels and the close substitutes metaphor for a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for repeating per-pillar 'Actions' beats, not for headline writing.”
↓ Action titles overwhelmingly topic labels (e.g. p.11 'Negative impacts of increased complexity', p.17 'A different way', p.34 'Culture of compliance') — the insights live in callouts, not headlines
68
narrative
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
68
narrative
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
68
narrative
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing
68
narrative
From resilience to reinvention
“A competent, correctly-shaped CEO-survey deck with the right SCQA bones but topic-label titles and a soft close — useful as a structural template, not as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title writing.”
↓ Titles are mostly nouns ('Outlook', 'Sustainability', 'Impact of AI') instead of insight-bearing action titles