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
130 matching · page 1 / 6
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
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
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
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
“A rigorous DECC-commissioned diagnostic with answer-first framing and quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the gap' instead of 'here is what to do' — use pages 4, 12, 15, and 28 as Storymakers exemplars of metric-led titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on a conditional frame (p.61 'What you would need to believe...') and dissolves into appendix
78
opening
AI Raising Stakes Cybersecurity
“Solid BCG research slideshow with a clean S→C→A→R spine and strong declarative titles, but the recommendation is compressed into one slide — use it as a teaching example for action titles and opening stakes, not for resolution design.”
↓ Resolution is undersized — a single p.20 priorities slide has to carry the entire «what to do» after 10 diagnostic slides
78
opening
Retail banking survey Sustainability and retail banking
“Competent short-form thought-leadership whitepaper with a clear risk thesis but topic-label titles and a thin recommendation - useful as a teaching example for callout writing and S->C->A->R skeleton, not for action-title craft or closing punch.”
↓ Page titles are nouns/topics, not declarative insights - the strong callouts on p.4, p.6, p.8 should have been promoted to titles
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
Hydrogen: Closing the cost gap
“A solid analytical McKinsey build with strong quantified titles and a clean three-bucket MECE, but it buries its named framework and lets the recommendation drift into the appendix - use pp. 10-13 as a teaching example for analytical staircases, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide p. 19 reverts to a vague topic-style title and lacks a crisp recommendation or next-step CTA
76
opening
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
76
opening
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Presentation
“A textbook bank-earnings deck with a strong declarative opening but a tail-heavy, recommendation-free close — useful as a Storymakers example for action-title openings, not as a model for full narrative arc.”
↓ Segment slides p16-p20 use division names as titles instead of insight statements
76
opening
Deutsche Bank Q2 2023 Presentation
“A competent bank earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening but an analytical, tension-free middle and a near-absent close — useful as an example of declarative summary titles, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No Complication act — every callout reinforces 'momentum' and 'growth'; tensions (inflationary cost pressure p11, credit-loss upper-range guidance p12, litigation p37) are mentioned but never elevated into a narrative pivot
75
opening
Aerospace supply chain: Resilience report 2024
“A disciplined survey-report deck with strong action titles and tight pacing, but the recommendation is under-built and the structure is a flat analytical run rather than a true Storymakers arc — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing or pillar design.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.13) with a generic 'adopt best-practices' message — no specific moves, owners, or sequencing
75
opening
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
72
opening
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
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
L.E.K.’s 2024 ASC Insights Study Key takeaways for provider organizations
“A tight, well-titled thought-leadership teaser with a clean S->C->A->R arc — use p.4-8 action titles as a teaching example for insight-first headlines, but the methodology-heavy p.2 and soft p.11/p.13 close keep it short of exemplar status.”
↓ P.2 burns the second slide on methodology/sources rather than stakes or thesis
72
opening
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
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
What if the eurozone were to enter a recession? Roland Berger Institute
“A tightly-written analytical brief with exemplary action titles but no explicit MECE dividers and no recommendation slide; use it as a teaching example for sentence-titles, not for full story-arc structure.”
↓ No section dividers — the four-mechanism MECE (investment, layoffs, consumption, government) is invisible without reading every title
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
72
opening
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with a strong hook and insight-bearing key-message slides, but it stops at analysis and never answers the 'so what' — useful as a teaching example for action titles and rhetorical setup, not for closing a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends p.27-30 in methodology, sources, and an About Ipsos boilerplate
72
opening
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
72
opening
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding