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
European Consumer Sentiment Survey: How current events in Europe are shaping consumer behavior
“A textbook McKinsey consumer-research deck with a strong opening and disciplined three-pillar MECE spine, but it stops at analysis — use it as an exemplar for action titles and pillar structure, not for the full Storymakers S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on data slides (p38–p39 splurge intent) and a blank McKinsey logo (p40), with no 'implications for retailers/brands' or call to action
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
78
opening
Year-end Macro Brief Into the Fog of Winter
“A polished macro chart pack with above-average action titles and a memorable 'winter' thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for slide-level title-writing, not for Storymakers full-arc structure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation act — deck ends on p.54's credit-crunch warning then jumps to team bio (p.55), leaving the 'so-what for executives' unanswered
78
opening
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
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
Towards the unified secondary market: The evolution of distribution channels and evaluation of Asset Tokenization Benefi
“A competent EY thought-leadership deck with a strong analytical middle and a quantified opening, but it ends as a service pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension-building, not for closing structure.”
↓ Four 'Content' dividers (p.6, p.10, p.12, p.18) labeled identically — wasted opportunity to name MECE pillars
78
opening
2019 ccb investor day ba56d0e8
“A textbook investor-day deck with consultant-grade action titles and clean MECE business-line pillars, but reassurance-mode narrative and a generic closing — use the Home Lending section (pp.21-30) as the SCQA exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Closing slide p.48 ('We remain focused on executing against our strategy') is generic — no concrete asks, financial commitments, or 2020 milestones
75
opening
2023 Ipsos Global Trends Report
“A well-crafted trends report with disciplined action titles and a strong opening hook, but it reads as an encyclopedia of twelve parallel chapters rather than a single argument — useful as a teaching example for chapter-level structure and title craft, not for overall narrative escalation or closing punch.”
↓ Twelve trend chapters of near-identical structure flatten the narrative — there is no escalation or ranking of which trends matter most for the reader
74
opening
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
74
opening
2019 am investor day ba56d0e8
“A competent investor-day strategy showcase with a clear three-pillar spine and quantified proof, but it skips the Complication and fumbles the close — useful as an exemplar of pillar tagging and metric-led titles, not of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never names a problem, threat, or 'why now', so it is proof without provocation
72
opening
A tough year for European chemicals players has come to an end – We do expect a continuation of the challenges into 2024
“A solid analytical diagnosis deck with disciplined action titles, but it ends as a credentials pitch rather than a recommendation -- useful as a teaching example for title craft and diagnosis flow, not for Storymakers closing discipline.”
↓ No explicit recommendation/next-steps slide -- p.13-16 outline a framework but never land on 'do these 3 things by Q2'
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
70
opening
Altagamma 2019 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A well-structured annual market monitor with strong action-title discipline and a memorable mnemonic pillar framework — useful as a teaching example for action titles and section spines, but not for closing the loop, since it ends on description rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the analytical build peaks at p.44 abstraction then dissolves into back matter (pp.45-49)
70
opening
Trends in the truck & trailer market
“A well-structured analytical market study with strong quantified titles and a clear MECE framework, but it stops at 'here is what we found' rather than 'here is what to do' - useful as a research-deck exemplar, weaker as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No genuine recommendation or 'so what' act - p.49 is the only slide tagged 'recommend' and it offers a generic capability statement rather than client actions
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
IMD Morgan Stanley Final 13 June 2019
“Competent regional-bank investor deck with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it never states a Complication and ends in disclaimers — useful as an exemplar of pillar architecture and peer-benchmark evidence, not as a full SCQA narrative or strong close.”
↓ No Complication: deck shows strengths without naming a tension or risk, so there is nothing for the recommendation to resolve
65
opening
Private company outlook: Productivity
“A competent but inert survey-findings report with above-average action titles and a strong opening stat — use it as a teaching example of declarative titling, not of narrative arc, because it has no Resolution act and ends on boilerplate.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — p.12 is just another finding, then p.13 is boilerplate
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)
62
opening
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
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
Pivoting to a High Quality Growth of Clinical Trials in China PharmaDJ x L.E.K. Clinical Development Report
“A competent, survey-driven thought-leadership report with a clear four-pillar spine and numerate titles, but it builds analytically and then fails to land — use its Act 1 setup (pp.3, 5-12) as a teaching example of thesis-plus-proof, not its resolution.”
↓ Resolution act is effectively one slide (p.48) — no prioritized recommendations, no 'so what for pharma X' translation, and no decision framework.
62
opening
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
62
opening
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
62
opening
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3