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
28 matching · page 1 / 2
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
72
opening
Destination unknown: The future of long-distance travel
“A competent analytical brief with crisp action titles and a strong opening contradiction, but it stops at 'analysis' and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast structure, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends on p.11 data and an authors page, with the implication that 'providers need digital tools' never expanded into a Resolution act
72
opening
eyp global economic outlook jan 2024
“A well-titled, evidence-rich economic outlook with a strong thematic spine but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for declarative action titles and scenario framing, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No closing act: the deck ends with country analysis (p.36) → 'Agenda' (p.37) → bios (p.38-39) → disclaimer; zero synthesis, recommendation, or implications slide
70
opening
The seventh disruption to the Global Polymer Industry
“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.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.11 substitutes a Roland Berger credentials pitch for a concrete answer to 'how do you win the seventh disruption?'
70
opening
What if all vehicles were electric?
“Solid analytical point-of-view with quantified titles but a missing resolution act — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on rate-limiters (p.9) with no recommendation, implication, or answer to the cover question
70
opening
From Lead to Cash Simplify and Scale with Revenue Ops
“A competently structured RevOps point-of-view with a clean MECE spine but topic-label titles and a buried recommendation — useful as a teaching example of pillar architecture, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are dominated by topic nouns ('People', 'Process', 'Technology', 'Recommendations', 'Conclusion') instead of declarative insights
68
opening
The CEO’s Roadmap on Generative AI
“A well-structured three-pillar BCG executive perspective with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it opens slowly and ends in a checklist rather than a recommendation — use pp.5, 14, 15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Resolution is thin — p.31 'companies can adopt the following policies today' is a generic checklist, and p.32 is a team-bio slide; there is no synthesis slide restating the pillar-level recommendations
65
opening
10th Operations Efficiency Radar
“A competent annual-survey report with a clear A→B→C→D skeleton and quantified titles, but the seven-industry template repetition and 22-slide appendix tail make it a Storymakers exemplar for action-titled data slides — not for narrative compression.”
↓ Industry walk-through (p.25–45) is formulaic: each of seven industries gets the same quote→value-chain→reposition triplet, and the same canned callout 'If corporate functions spot the opportunities…' is recycled verbatim on p.27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45
65
opening
The Growing Challenge of Semiconductor Design Leadership
“Solid SIA/BCG advocacy briefing with strong quantified middle (p.8-13) but no recommendation and a slow open — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.14 sizes the prize ($450B) but never says what policies, leaving the deck as a problem statement without an answer
65
opening
RAIL FREIGHT IN CENTRAL ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST
“A well-disciplined two-region analytical study with strong action titles and parallel MECE structure, but it reads as two stacked reports rather than one Storymakers arc — use the title craft and country-deep-dive template as a teaching example, not the overall narrative shape.”
↓ Executive Summary slides p.11–13 are titled '(1/3), (2/3), (3/3)' — wasted real estate where the thesis should live
65
opening
EY Foundation 2022 2023 Impact Report
“A competent non-profit impact report with strong stakes and a bold closing target, but title quality and the long un-pillared case-study run keep it short of a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'how to use callouts to carry the argument' counter-example more than a structural template.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly nouns ('Income', 'Volunteers', 'Welcome', 'Smart Futures') instead of insight-bearing claims
64
opening
The Best Service Providers for Commercial Banks, 2025
“A competent analyst-report excerpt with a clean skeleton and one strong hook, but it buries the ranking, closes on a vendor placard, and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example of section architecture and the p2 hook, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Thesis (seven Horizon 3 leaders named on p15) is buried 60% of the way through the deck
62
opening
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
60
opening
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
60
opening
University of Arizona 2018 Strategic Plan
“Solid MECE pillar architecture with quantified callouts, but topic-label titles and a missing closing slide make it an institutional planning document, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for how strong structure cannot rescue weak action titles.”
↓ Action titles are nouns, not insights — every initiative slide is titled 'Pillar X Initiatives (n of m)' with zero takeaway
55
opening
How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience
“A structurally sound four-act research report with strong MECE pillars and quantified callouts, undermined by seven identically-titled analysis slides and a missing call-to-action — use its section architecture as a teaching example, not its action titles.”
↓ Seven slides (p.12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21) all carry the identical title 'Why alignment matters' — the biggest title-quality failure in the deck
55
opening
Everest Group CPG Services
“A competent analyst-report briefing with two strong declarative titles but a procedural opening, no complication act, and a recommendation that fades into five pages of appendix — use pp.5, 7, and 8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening act is procedural: pp.1-4 consume a quarter of the deck on cover, 'Introduction', 'Scope', and framework mechanics before any thesis is asserted
55
opening
Tillsonburg IT Strategic Review
“A competently structured public-sector advisory deck with a clear S-C-A-R spine and strong callouts, but undercut by topic-label titles and a slow opener — useful as a teaching example of clean section flow, not of Storymakers action-title discipline.”
↓ Slow opening: five slides of front matter/scaffolding before the stakes land (p.1–5)
55
opening
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A well-organised, MECE sector outlook with solid action titles on body slides but no opening hook and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and pillar consistency, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Nine 'Key Takeaways' slides reuse the same non-insight title instead of stating the takeaway in the headline
55
opening
Leadership: Driving innovation and delivering impact The Deloitte Global Chief Procurement Officer Survey 2018
“A competent annual survey report with MECE pillars and good benchmarking, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends in reference content — useful as a section-architecture exemplar, not as a model for opening, closing, or action-title craft.”
↓ Recommendations compressed into a single slide ('Action starts here', p.35) and placed before the industry/regional appendix — the call to action is structurally buried
55
opening
ey tt amcham presentation 2023 economic outlook 20230123
“A competent survey-results deck with strong action-title craft on individual slides, but structurally it is a parallel findings dump rather than a Storymakers argument — useful as an exemplar of action-title writing, not of narrative arc.”
↓ No upfront answer — the thesis/recommendation is never stated in the first 5 slides; the reader must reach p9 for the first insight and p35 for the conclusion
50
opening
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
“A competent Ipsos research deliverable with strong data discipline but weak narrative craft — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closing structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slide titles are survey questions, not insights — p.30 'Q. My country's national labour market' should read something like 'Views on labour-market impact split nearly 50/50, with sharpest negativity in Türkiye and Hungary'
48
opening
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide
45
opening
COVID-19 Business Recovery Vancouver
“A competent McKinsey scenario-and-learnings deck with disciplined three-pillar scaffolding and good quantified titles on data pages, but it buries its thesis at the open and dilutes its recommendation at the close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Opening is a slow burn — agenda on p.3 and a topic-label scenario chart on p.4 delay the thesis; no answer-first slide in the first 5 pages