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
726 matching · page 13 / 31
62
opening
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
62
opening
Strategy at the Pace of Technology
“Solid analytical Accenture build with a textbook two-pillar MECE structure and a real recommendation slide, but a flabby front matter and a closing-divider whimper keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use p.15-22 as the teaching example for pillar dividers, not the opening or close.”
↓ Two slides (p.4, p.6) carry the identical deck-title 'Strategy at the pace of technology' as their action title - wasted real estate
62
opening
The art of AI maturity Advancing from practice to performance North America
“A disciplined, well-architected thought-leadership deck whose five-recommendation 'How' section (p.20-28) is a clean Storymakers exemplar of imperative action titles, but the deck buries its answer for 15 pages and ends on theme rather than call-to-action — use the middle, not the opening or close, as a teaching reference.”
↓ No true call-to-action close — the deck ends on a thematic p.31 and an assessment figure (p.32) rather than an explicit 'next steps' recommendation slide
62
opening
2019 True-Luxury Global Consumer I nsight
“A data-rich BCG research readout with competent chart-level action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline on analytical slides, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what brands should do' slide — the deck ends at p.49 'THANK YOU' straight after a Made-in Italy chart
62
opening
The Evolving State of Digital Transformation
“A well-crafted survey-findings brief with exemplary stat-led action titles, but structurally an analytical walk with no complication and no recommendation — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a narrative model.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — deck ends on p.16 describing COVID priorities, then a disclaimer, leaving the reader without a "now what"
62
opening
TSS Index 2025 France
“A solid analytical BCG index deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the recommendation in one sparse slide and ends on a diagnostic rather than a close — use p.2-10 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Sector deep-dive titles (p.11 'Chemicals', p.12 'Transportation & Logistics', p.13 '2024 Performance Overview') are topic labels, not insights — loses the action-title thread built earlier
62
opening
US Natural Gas Future Standalone
“Strong analytical build with disciplined action titles and well-named pillars, but the arc sequences scenarios before constraints and closes with a restatement rather than a recommendation — use it as a Storymakers exemplar for title craft and pillar labeling, not for SCQA sequencing or endings.”
↓ Section order inverts SCQA: Scenarios (p16-18) come before Constraints (p19-21), so the 'question' is posed before the complication that makes it urgent
62
opening
Altagamma 2018 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A competent market-monitor deck with strong numeric action titles and a real recommendation, but the opening buries the thesis and the pillar structure is asymmetric — use its action-title discipline as a teaching example, not its overall arc.”
↓ p.44 repeats p.8's title 'LUXURY IN 2025 WILL BE A DIFFERENT PLACE' verbatim as the deck approaches closure — feels like a recycled placeholder rather than a summative insight
62
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2020 At full velocity: Resilient and racing ahead
“A solid industry research report with textbook action titles in its analytical core (p12–p60) but front-loaded with methodology, weak on an explicit recommendation, and tailing into a repetitive country appendix — use the sector-analysis middle as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The country section (p95–127) is six near-identical mini-decks with repeated generic titles ('Exponential growth of digital consumers (who will stay)', 'Investment in Internet sector') — a topic-dump, not an insight-led close
62
opening
Everest Group Retail Services
“A reprinted analyst-badge marketing asset, not a Storymakers deck — useful only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and appendix-as-closer; do not use as an exemplar.”
↓ Pages 5-11 are labelled only «Cognizant profile (page X of 7)» — seven consecutive topic-label titles with no insight, the single worst Storymakers violation in the deck.
62
opening
Building a Future-Ready Investment Firm
“A competently structured thought-leadership eBook with a genuine MECE backbone and strong case-study scaffolding, but weakened by topic-label titles and a repetitive four-slide close — use its pillar architecture as a teaching example, not its openings or closings.”
↓ 'What the experts say' is reused as a title on p.9, p.17, p.36, p.62 — a signal of lazy editorial craft for a consulting flagship
62
opening
CEOs ready to face up to crises
“A competent Deloitte survey report with declarative section dividers but topic-label slide titles and no resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how pillar dividers and data-rich callouts can carry a deck despite weak within-section titles and a missing recommendation close.”
↓ Slide titles are topic dumps, not action titles — p.7, 8, 9 are all titled 'Strategy'; p.25-28 all titled 'Financing'; the reader cannot skim for the argument
62
opening
Deloitte 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New fundamentals for a boundaryless world
“A well-architected research-trends deck with genuine MECE pillars and dense data, but it teaches as a framework lookbook rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use its section structure as a model and its title writing as a counter-example.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels reused across 2-3 consecutive slides (e.g., 'Negotiating worker data' p.21-23, 'Activating the future of workplace' p.17-19) — readers can't skim the deck
62
opening
The future of M&A 2022 M&A Trends Survey
“A competent survey-report deck with quantified findings but weak Storymakers hygiene — reuse for teaching callout-writing and framework slides, not for action titles, pillar architecture, or closings.”
↓ Title reuse across 4-6 consecutive slides (e.g. 'Beyond the basics' p.13-18, 'What is your place on the playing field?' p.31-37) destroys slide-level action-title discipline
62
opening
EY Work Reimagined 2022 Survey
“A competently sequenced survey-findings deck with strong analytical action titles but a weak recommendation and synthesis - use the middle (p.5-p.10) as a teaching example of title-writing, not the opening or close.”
↓ Recommendation slide p.11 is phrased as a question instead of a declarative ask, diluting the punch of the deck's 'so what'
62
opening
GenAI wealth asset management
“A competent survey-highlights report with strong per-slide action titles and a coherent analytical middle, but it's not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.7–19 to teach stat-led action titles, not the overall structure, which lacks a complication, named pillars, and a closing recommendation.”
↓ Five separate 'Contents' slides (p.2, p.4, p.6, p.20, p.23) with no pillar labels act as filler dividers rather than MECE signposts
62
opening
Navigating Disruption Financial Services
“A well-researched case-study compendium with disciplined 'from X to Y' action titles, but it opens with methodology and closes without a recommendation — use the case-study slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No synthesis slide — after 8 cases (p.9-16) there is no cross-case pattern, scorecard, or 'what this means for incumbents'
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
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality industry monitor with strong action-titled charts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches slide craft (declarative titles, parallel sub-structures) rather than narrative architecture — use individual slides as examples, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next moves' slide — the deck ends at p.50 on a data point, then methodology
62
opening
Global Health Partnerships Stop TB
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic-and-design deck with strong analytical action titles inside each chapter, but structurally a topic dump organized by team rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for KPI-tree slides (p.19-23) and pull-quote callouts, not for overall arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening flows straight from context (p.3) into approach/phasing (p.5) without telling the audience the answer
62
opening
Veteran Opportunity
“A competent McKinsey body-of-evidence deck with a clean MECE spine and strong client case studies, but it under-delivers as a Storymakers exemplar — opening is soft, closing is missing, and recurring 'Best practices for X' topic titles dilute the action-title discipline.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — body ends on p31 GE case, then jumps to resources/appendix; the 'so what, now what' is missing
62
opening
Refueling Innovation Engine Vaccines
“A textbook McKinsey diagnostic deck with a clean SCQA arc and strong action titles, but it stops one slide short of a committed recommendation — use pp.16-25 as a teaching example of narrative pivoting, not the closing.”
↓ Resolution act is tentative — 'Initial thoughts' (p.30) and 'Questions for discussion' (p.32) abdicate the recommendation
62
opening
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
62
opening
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent GRI-aligned sustainability disclosure that is well-evidenced but narratively flat — useful as a teaching example of KPI density and ESG taxonomy, but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it has topic-label titles, no tension, and no recommendation close.”
↓ Action titles are largely absent — p.22 'Economic performance', p.67 'Trainings', p.84 'Pollutant emission' are nouns, not insights