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 opening
- 88 Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale McKinsey · 2016
- 88 American Express Investor Day 2024 McKinsey · 2024
- 85 Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021 Accenture · 2021
- 85 Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound McKinsey · 2021
- 84 Global Pricing Sales Study 2017 SimonKucher · 2017
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “Competent consulting thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and three-pillar structure, but weakened by redundant titling and a missing call-to-action — use the opening bookend (p.2-3) and case-study pairing pattern as teaching examples, not the overall structure.” — Accenture, 2023
- “A well-crafted thought-leadership narrative with a strong opening and a memorable proprietary framework, but it trails off into case studies and a soft CTA instead of landing a prescriptive recommendation — use the opening and quantified-stakes sections as teaching examples, not the closing.” — Accenture, 2020
- “A disciplined Accenture thought-leadership deck with a genuine SCQA spine and a clean five-pillar recommend+case-study build — use the divider ladder and pillar pairing as a teaching example, but not the soft landing or the label-style analytical titles.” — Accenture, 2022
- “A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.” — BCG, 2020
- “Well-scaffolded problem-diagnosis deck with strong action titles and MECE dividers, but the 'answer' act is thin and there's no explicit recommendation — use the opening and divider chain as a Storymakers teaching example, not the resolution.” — BCG, 2019
- “Short analytical index-release with a strong hook and mostly declarative titles but no resolution - use p.1-p.2 as an opening-hook exemplar, not as a full Storymakers arc.” — BCG, 2024
- “A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.” — BCG, 2025
- “A strong answer-first sizing report with disciplined declarative titles and clean MECE pillars, but it stops at diagnosis — use p4-5 and the segment-sizing run as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.” — Bain, 2016
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 1 / 46
88
opening
Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale
“Textbook McKinsey answer-first diagnostic with a strong front-loaded thesis and clean MECE sector build — use the opening (pp.6-10) and the per-sector template (pp.38-48) as Storymakers exemplars, but do not copy its closing, which buries the recommendation under 70 pages of appendix.”
↓ Closing collapses into appendix: pp.164-234 are methodology, statistical tests and the kommissorium, with no recommendation/roadmap slide before the appendix split
88
opening
American Express Investor Day 2024
“A disciplined, thesis-led investor-day deck with genuine MECE pillars and metric-rich action titles -- a useful Storymakers exemplar for opening structure and pillar architecture, but its navigation bloat and missing complication act make it a partial, not whole-deck, teaching reference.”
↓ Heavy navigation overhead: ~15 'Today's Focus' transitions plus 'Key Takeaways' bookends inflate the page count without adding insight
85
opening
Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021
“A well-structured commissioned value-quantification report with a strong BLUF opening and MECE essential/enriches pillars, but it is an analytical exposition rather than a Storymakers exemplar - it teaches pillar design and quantified action titles, not how to close with a recommendation.”
↓ No Resolution / CTA: deck ends on a gaming case study (p.27) then methodology - missing a 'what this means for NBN Co / policy / retailers' closing slide
85
opening
Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound
“A tight, well-opened McKinsey 'point of view' mini-deck with insight-bearing titles and a clear value-at-stake hook, but the closing recommendation is buried in a run-on title - use the opening and metric-per-slide discipline as a teaching example, not the close.”
↓ Closing slide (p.8) action title is a 36-word run-on, not a directive; weakens the call to action
84
opening
Global Pricing Sales Study 2017
“Sharp analytical teaser with a strong stat-led opening and clean S-C-A-R skeleton, but the recommendation is deliberately withheld and the close is a lead-gen CTA — useful as a teaching example for action titles and complication framing, not for resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act (p.9) is marked sparse — the answer to 'how to avoid the Big Digital Fail' is structurally promised but not delivered in the inventoried content
82
opening
Resiliency in the making
“Competent consulting thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and three-pillar structure, but weakened by redundant titling and a missing call-to-action — use the opening bookend (p.2-3) and case-study pairing pattern as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Resiliency in the making' is reused as a slide title on p.18 and p.26 — wastes two action-title slots on branding repetition
82
opening
The Hidden Value of Culture Makers
“A well-crafted thought-leadership narrative with a strong opening and a memorable proprietary framework, but it trails off into case studies and a soft CTA instead of landing a prescriptive recommendation — use the opening and quantified-stakes sections as teaching examples, not the closing.”
↓ Conclusion slide (p.22) titled 'In conclusion' — textbook topic-label anti-pattern in a deck that otherwise uses action titles
82
opening
The art of AI maturity Advancing from practice to performance
“A disciplined Accenture thought-leadership deck with a genuine SCQA spine and a clean five-pillar recommend+case-study build — use the divider ladder and pillar pairing as a teaching example, but not the soft landing or the label-style analytical titles.”
↓ No explicit call-to-action slide; the deck trails off into author bios (p.32–33) and a six-page appendix (p.34–39), with the C-suite self-assessment (p.31) buried before them
82
opening
Fast-moving consumer goods: Driving value creation in an era of disruption
“A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Diagnosis act is only ~3 slides (p.5-7) before pivoting to recommendations on p.9, leaving the 'why these 5 imperatives' logic underbuilt
82
opening
End of management as we know it
“Well-scaffolded problem-diagnosis deck with strong action titles and MECE dividers, but the 'answer' act is thin and there's no explicit recommendation — use the opening and divider chain as a Storymakers teaching example, not the resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p.28 is an illustrative observation, not a call to action
82
opening
Transform Special Situations Index
“Short analytical index-release with a strong hook and mostly declarative titles but no resolution - use p.1-p.2 as an opening-hook exemplar, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act - deck ends on p.7 sector data with zero recommendation, implication, or 'what leaders should do'
82
opening
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
82
opening
e-Conomy SEA Unlocking the $200 billion digital opportunity in Southeast Asia
“A strong answer-first sizing report with disciplined declarative titles and clean MECE pillars, but it stops at diagnosis — use p4-5 and the segment-sizing run as Storymakers exemplars, not the closing.”
↓ No recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends on a fraud statistic (p33) then a duplicate cover (p34)
82
opening
European Consumer Sentiment Survey: How current events in Europe are shaping consumer behavior
“A textbook McKinsey consumer-research deck with a strong opening and disciplined three-pillar MECE spine, but it stops at analysis — use it as an exemplar for action titles and pillar structure, not for the full Storymakers S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on data slides (p38–p39 splurge intent) and a blank McKinsey logo (p40), with no 'implications for retailers/brands' or call to action
82
opening
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'
82
opening
New US tax/tariff proposals and their impact on the US automotive industry
“An analytically rigorous, answer-first Roland Berger argument with excellent declarative titles and a clean S→C→A pillar structure, but it stops at impact and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified build-up, not for how to close a deck.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck stops at p32's impact number with no recommendation, mitigation play, or stance on what OEMs/policymakers should do next
82
opening
Roland Berger Construction Radar – Impacts on DACH region
“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.”
↓ Recommendation compressed into a single slide (p.11) with a generic callout — disproportionate to the 4-slide analytical build-up
82
opening
What if Germany becomes the sick man of Europe again?
“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.”
↓ No section dividers — the cyclical/structural/cost/digital pillars aren't labeled, so MECE structure is implicit only
82
opening
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
82
opening
Unlocking alpha in deals
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a clean SCQA arc and MECE three-pillar spine — use the divider structure and analytical action titles as a teaching example, but flag the repeated 'Call to action' titles and missing operational close as the lessons in what to fix.”
↓ Three slides (p.18, p.22, p.26) all titled 'Call to action' — a topic label repeated verbatim, the opposite of action titling
82
opening
us executive macroeconomic briefing february 20240223
“A strong analytical macro briefing with thesis-led opening and genuinely insight-bearing action titles, undermined by a platitude recommendation, an orphan slide near the close, and missing pillar structure — use the title craft and opening as a Storymakers exemplar, but not the resolution.”
↓ Resolution is generic: p.23 'transform uncertainty into opportunity' is a consultancy cliché rather than a recommendation derived from the prior 20 slides of analysis
82
opening
article thebeatjun2025
“A strong front-of-book market commentary that leads with the answer and writes real action titles, then degrades into an unstoryfied 30-page data appendix — use slides 1-15 as a teaching example of 'lead with the answer,' not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Pages 20-51 are a reference data dump with topic-label titles and no narrative thread — roughly half the deck does no storytelling work
82
opening
350e000c acff 48f1 ab1e fc2abe7a5f3c
“A Goldman weekly strategy note with a strong thesis opening and a reference-book middle — useful as a teaching example for lead-with-the-answer openings, but not as a story arc.”
↓ 27 consecutive analyze_data slides (p.6–32) with no narrative thread back to the Mag-7 question
82
opening
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.