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 9 / 46
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
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
70
narrative
Stepping Up the Pace Manufacturing
“A competent Cognizant thought-leadership report with a legible three-act pillar structure and strong benchmarking evidence, but it buries its recommendation and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for MECE section dividers and leader-vs-laggard storytelling, not for answer-first opening or decisive closing.”
↓ No answer-first opening — neither cover (p.1) nor intro (p.3) states the recommendation; reader must reach p.14-16 to see the 'copy the leaders' thesis
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
US Natural Gas Future Standalone
“Strong analytical build with disciplined action titles and well-named pillars, but the arc sequences scenarios before constraints and closes with a restatement rather than a recommendation — use it as a Storymakers exemplar for title craft and pillar labeling, not for SCQA sequencing or endings.”
↓ Section order inverts SCQA: Scenarios (p16-18) come before Constraints (p19-21), so the 'question' is posed before the complication that makes it urgent
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
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“A well-structured BCG x Tencent market study with exemplary quantified action titles in its analytical spine, but it loses Storymakers discipline exactly where it matters most - the recommendation titles go topic-label and the deck ends in 'Thank you'; use the middle (p.4-28) as a teaching example of action-title craft, not the closing.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.43-45) are topic labels, not insights - the deck teaches action titles for 40 pages then abandons them at the punchline
70
narrative
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
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
Reinventing for resilience
“A solid analytical Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong action titles on its data pages and proprietary IP, but the SCQA arc is bottom-heavy: use the data slides (p7, p11, p14, p17) as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slide 18 is a verbatim duplicate of slide 17's headline — a wasted page that signals weak editorial discipline
70
narrative
From survive to thrive Achieving tech transformation for communication service providers’ future
“A competent diagnostic-and-recommendations consulting deck with a clean three-pillar spine (p18-21) but topic-label titles and a buried call-to-action — use the transition slide and numbered recommendations as a Storymakers teaching example, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation on p8 ('Modern IT systems: A source of competitive advantage') arrives before the problem is fully framed on p9-10, muddying the S→C→A→R order
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
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry benchmark report with above-average action titles and a brave answer-first opening, but it loses the narrative arc midway and ends in an analytical dump — useful as an exemplar of declarative titling and front-loaded thesis, not of full SCQA structure.”
↓ Closing collapses into 'Additional findings' (p.24) → appendix with no recap, no decision slide, and no memorable mic-drop
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
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“A rigorous government-commissioned diagnostic with strong quantified evidence in the middle, but it buries the recommendation under appendices and over-relies on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for Storymakers narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses into a single 'Next steps' slide (p.69) followed by 36 pages of appendix — no recommendation slide, no executive ask
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
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
“A rigorous, MECE-disciplined UK government-policy advisory deck with an admirably explicit recommendation thread - use the numbered-pillars structure (10 practicalities, 8 options) and the recommendation->timeline close as Storymakers teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which buries the rail-industry context in an end-of-deck appendix and opens too slowly to surface the thesis.”
↓ Background-on-the-industry section (p.134-170, 37 slides) sits at the END rather than the front, so context that should have set up the stakes instead trails the recommendation and dilutes the close