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
374 matching · page 1 / 16
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
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
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
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.
82
opening
2020 firm overview
“A textbook BLUF-and-refrain opening attached to a P&L-line-item analytical dump and an inflated appendix — use slides 2, 9, 11, and 22 as title-writing exemplars, but not the overall structure as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or ask — p.25 summarizes performance but the deck lacks a 'so what / next' slide before agenda placeholders and appendix
82
opening
2019 cib investor day ba56d0e8
“A well-built JPM investor-day showcase with disciplined MECE pillars and metric-rich action titles, but it is a results-defense deck rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.3–6 and the Markets build (pp.14–22) as title-quality and pillar-structure references, not as a model for narrative tension.”
↓ No SCQA complication — the deck never names a tension, threat, or strategic question, so every section reads as a victory lap rather than a resolution.
82
opening
Q1 2025 Fixed Income Call
“Competent fixed-income investor update with a disciplined answer-first opening and strong main-body action titles, but it collapses at the close ('Summary and outlook') and leans on a bloated 25-slide appendix — use the p.2-p.14 arc as a teaching example for answer-first sequencing, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Weak close: p.15 'Summary and outlook' is a topic label with no stated outlook, no recommendation, and no memorable takeaway
80
opening
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
80
opening
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
80
opening
13.02.23 Annual Results Presentation
“A disciplined annual results readout with answer-first opening and clean MECE pillars, but soft on tension and ends on a taper — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of structure and answer-first openings, not of dramatic arc or insight-bearing titles in data sections.”
↓ Topic-label titles in the financial section (p4 'Revenue Breakdown by Region', p6 'Revenue Breakdown by Audience', p10 'Change in Operating Margin', p13 'Debt by Maturity') waste the most insight-rich pages
78
opening
The next billion consumers
“A solid thought-leadership deck with a strong quantified opening and clean segmentation, but the recommendation framework is under-titled and the close rallies rather than resolves; useful as an exemplar for action-title data slides, not for closing arc.”
↓ Four-driver framework (p.27-38) is introduced via divider words ('Digital brain', 'Digital brawn') not insight titles, and each driver is explained through 'Ask:' prompts rather than imperatives
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
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
78
opening
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
78
opening
AI Radar C-Suite Agenda
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with a clean tension pivot and strong action titles, but the middle lacks MECE scaffolding and the recommendation is compressed into one slide — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing and S→C→A hinges, less so for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillar signposting — the middle (pp.10-17) reads as a sequence of 'winners do X' observations rather than a structured framework
78
opening
Winning on the Margins TeBIT 2023
“A competent BCG benchmark readout with declarative titles and a solid opening, but it buries its recommendation and ends on an observation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and S->C openings, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — p.14 ends on an observation, burying the call to action
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.