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
137 matching · page 1 / 6
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
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
80
opening
Vehicle-as-a-Service From vehicle ownership to usage-based subscription models
“A disciplined Deloitte industry POV with a strong answer-first opening and a rallying close — usable as a Storymakers exemplar for S→C→A→R framing and call-to-action craft, but the middle analytical pillars are a cautionary tale on MECE sprawl and topic-label titles.”
↓ Eight numbered sections with overlapping scope — 05 LTV and 06 Operating Model read as the same idea split in two
78
opening
Accelerating net zero 2050
“A solidly-built thought-leadership report with answer-first framing and a clear call to action, but over-long openings and under-signposted middle acts keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.22-30 as a teaching example of analysis-to-recommendation flow, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Redundant openings: p.3 'executive summary' + p.4 'key findings' + p.5 'executive summary' repeat the same 93% stat three times in three pages
78
opening
Vietnam Logistics
“A competent A&M pitch-style market-opportunity report with strong action titles and a clean answer-first opening, but it buries the tension and has no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles and Cainiao-style precedent use, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.16 analysis, then jumps straight to Contacts and team bios
78
opening
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q4 2023
“A strong-opening BCG pulse report with declarative action titles worth teaching from, but it has no closing act and buries itself in a 7-slide table appendix — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as exemplars for 'answer-first' titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends at p18 and then devolves into a 7-slide appendix of comparison tables (p19-25) with no recommendation or call-to-action.
78
opening
Economic Impact of Ford and F-Series
“A polished BCG advocacy/impact report with exemplary action titles and pillar structure but no SCQA tension or closing recommendation — use slides 7–14 as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.27 with another benchmark slide, then disclaimer (p.28) and a Ford|BCG marker (p.29)
78
opening
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
78
opening
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
78
opening
Deutsche Bank Q2 2024 Presentation
“Solid bank earnings report with a strong thesis-first opening but a muddled close and topic-labeled analytical middle — use p.2-6 as a teaching example for action-title exec summaries, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Segment section (p.15-19) uses pure noun titles ('Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank') — misses the chance to state each segment's insight
75
opening
Building Sustainable Organizations
“A competent thought-leadership report with an early thesis and clear three-pillar spine, but the case-study run and closing undersell the recommendation — use the opening (pp.2-5) and problem-framing (p.11) as Storymakers exemplars, not the back half.”
↓ Case-study titles on pp.21-24 are company names, not extracted lessons — no insight portability
74
opening
The disability inclusion imperative
“A well-evidenced thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and clean pillar rhythm, but it labels rather than argues in its titles and fizzles into inspiration instead of a concrete call to action — use the business-case section (p.10-17) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the whole deck.”
↓ Three separate slides (p.3, p.4, p.36) reuse the generic title 'The disability inclusion imperative' — title repetition signals topic labeling, not action titling
74
opening
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
74
opening
Grocery profitability outlook –Europe
“Disciplined analytical build with exemplary action titles and quantified levers, but it tapers into case studies without a closing recommendation — use the diagnosis and impact-sizing sections (p.5-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the resolution arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or CTA slide — deck terminates on a Walmart case study (p.40) before the appendix.
74
opening
Southeast Asia’s Green Economy 2021 Report: Opportunities on the Road to Net Zero
“A solid, well-structured thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and a genuine recommendation act - use its MECE three-sector spine and branded close (p.74) as teaching examples, but flag the repetitive executive summary and topic-label framework titles as things to avoid.”
↓ Executive summary sprawls across pp.10-14 with three slides titled 'Executive summary' or 'Summary by the numbers' - repetition instead of escalation
74
opening
20240220 Barclays FY2023 Results and Investor Update Presentation
“A disciplined IR/strategy hybrid with a genuine MECE pillar spine and mostly insight-bearing titles, but bloated by per-division template repetition and duplicate book-ends — use the FY23 results run (pp.4-24) and the SBMB framework as exemplars, not the 145-page whole.”
↓ 145 pages with heavy repetition — each division repeats the same SBMB template (e.g. pp.100-103, pp.108-114, pp.119-122), so momentum stalls after the first division
72
opening
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
72
opening
Beyond good intentions
“A solid short-form point-of-view deck with clean SCQA bones and a strong three-pillar resolution — use p.10-13 as a teaching example of how to mirror a recommendation across slides, but nudge the opening and add dividers to make it truly exemplary.”
↓ p.3 'About this Report' is a generic front-matter label that stalls the opening instead of advancing the thesis
72
opening
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
72
opening
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Key Insights Report
“A solid evidence-led impact report with strong action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a results readout rather than a Storymakers story — use its titling and pillar structure as an exemplar, not its (absent) opening tension or closing recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a demographic stat (p.23) and 'About Accenture' (p.24) with no recommendation or call-to-action
72
opening
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
72
opening
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
72
opening
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal