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
35 matching · page 1 / 2
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
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
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
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
Deutsche Bank Q4 FY 2024 Presentation
“Textbook investor-earnings deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified scorecard, but analytical and segment sections revert to topic labels and it tails off into a 29-page appendix — use slides 2 and 6-8 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Segment section (p.20-24) titled by entity ('Corporate Bank', 'Investment Bank', 'Private Bank', 'Asset Management') instead of by insight — reader must parse callouts to learn which divisions are actually driving the thesis
78
opening
Blueprint for Advancing Metabolic Health
“Solid McKinsey white paper with a clean SCQA spine and one exemplary action-title slide (p.7), but the recommendation is buried and the deck trails off into quotes - useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Closing collapses: p.17 'Time to put it all together' is the recommendation slide but its title is generic and there is no explicit ask, owner, or next step.
78
opening
ey global economic outlook july 2023
“A polished, title-driven analytical brief with exemplary action titles and a clean thesis-first open - use it as a teaching example for title craft, but not for narrative arc, since it dissolves into a contributor bio instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation - the deck ends on a regional slide (p30 Africa) and a contributor bio (p32) instead of a 'what this means for you' slide
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
72
opening
Facts, scenarios, and actions for leaders Publication #3 with a focus on Emerging Stronger from the Crisis
“A competent crisis-era BCG update with a clear framework spine and explicit recommendations, but the duplicated section dividers and topic-label transitions make it a decent analytical-build example rather than an exemplary Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Duplicate section divider titles on p.15 and p.30 ('COVID-19 Context and Development') collapse the MECE structure
70
opening
Everest Group Trust and Safety Services PEAK Matrix Assessment 2025
“A reprint of a third-party analyst evaluation rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides titled 'Accenture profile (page X of 8)' (p.5-12) — pagination is not a title and erases the insight on each page
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
68
opening
Gartner Introduction 2025
“A well-crafted investor introduction with a strong opening thesis and several exemplary quantified action titles, but structurally a company tour - use individual slides (pp. 3, 17, 29, 35) as Storymakers title-writing exemplars, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Repeated identical divider title 'Gartner: Who We Are' across six slides destroys MECE signaling
65
opening
Responding to COVID-19: Addressing the economic impact of the crisis
“A solid analytical-diagnostic deck with a memorable 4R framework, but the recommendation half hedges and the closing evaporates — use the diagnosis section (p.6-10) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Closing collapses to a one-word 'Conclusion' (p.32) with no prioritized recommendation or next-step ask — fatal for a leader-facing deck
65
opening
Technology Mineral Criticality
“A solid analytical McKinsey deck with strong action titles and a clear opening problem-frame, but it loses the storyline halfway through and never delivers a closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for title quality and S-C-A framing, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on scenario analysis (p. 26) then 'Back-up' (p. 27)
65
opening
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
65
opening
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
65
opening
ey mobility consumer index mci 2022 study
“A solid annual-research findings deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it is an analytical report rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends at p10 'Concerns' + p11 demographics with no recommendation, implication, or call to action
62
opening
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
62
opening
BCG's Guide to Cost and Growth
“A competently argued thought-leadership deck with disciplined numeric action titles and a visible three-act spine, but it buries its recommendation behind a capabilities pitch — use p.3-9 and p.12-16 as a teaching example of statistic-led titling, not the overall close.”
↓ Closing collapses into capability-marketing: p.22 'BCG has deep expertise in cost management' replaces the recommendation slide the arc was building toward
58
opening
SDG Guide for Business Leaders
“A competent McKinsey playbook with a strong three-pillar spine and mostly declarative titles, but it opens with two TOCs and ends with templates instead of a recommendation - use the INSPIRE/ENGAGE/IMPACT structure as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Two tables of contents back-to-back (pp.2 and 4) signal weak editorial discipline before the deck even begins
55
opening
2018 True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight
“A textbook analytical build with strong data-led action titles, but it skips the Resolution act - use p14-p28 as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not as a model for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No synthesis/recommendation slide - deck ends on 'ready?' (p51), 'Thank you' (p52), and a BD pitch (p53); the reader never gets the 'so what, do this'
55
opening
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
55
opening
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“A solid analytical macroeconomic outlook with strong action titles in the diagnosis section, but it reads as a research briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative - useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for arc design or closing.”
↓ No BLUF or thesis slide in the opening - reader must infer the deck's question from the dashboard on p.3
55
opening
2025 Nigeria Budget and Economic Outlook
“A diligent, metric-rich PwC market outlook with strong declarative titles and a real recommendation arc, but it buries its thesis behind 10 pages of context and lets seven identically-titled pillar dividers obscure an otherwise MECE structure — use individual analytical pages (p.10, p.18, p.86) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck-level architecture.”
↓ Seven pillar dividers are titled identically ('Key issues for consideration in 2025', p.12/21/31/39/47/58/64), erasing MECE legibility for a skim reader