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
635 matching · page 18 / 27
55
opening
Intelligent banking
“A solid evidence-rich KPMG thought-leadership report with a defensible Enable/Embed/Evolve framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong habits — topic-label titles, buried thesis, vendor-pitch close — so use the middle phase structure as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Action titles are largely topic labels — 'Workforce concerns' (p.25), 'Barriers to progress' (p.10), 'Key considerations' (p.31) — forcing the reader to dig into the body to find the insight
55
opening
KPMG global tech report: Financial services insights
“A competently structured three-pillar thought-leadership report with a clean Analyze→Recommend rhythm, but more thematic survey than SCQA story — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline, not of opening/closing craft.”
↓ No explicit complication slide — p.4 lists findings but does not crystallize the tension that motivates the report
55
opening
From resilience to reinvention
“A competent, correctly-shaped CEO-survey deck with the right SCQA bones but topic-label titles and a soft close — useful as a structural template, not as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title writing.”
↓ Titles are mostly nouns ('Outlook', 'Sustainability', 'Impact of AI') instead of insight-bearing action titles
55
opening
Embracing the Loyalty Equation
“A well-researched Accenture POV with a strong central framework but a soft opening, repeated titles, and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of framework-anchored analysis, not of Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Duplicate generic action titles: 'The way forward' appears on both p.17 and p.21, signaling the recommendation section was not sharpened
55
opening
Reinventing with a Digital Core
“A competent thought-leadership report with a memorable ACT framework, but it asserts importance rather than dramatizing it and ends in a whisper — useful as a teaching example for framework architecture (p.14-23), not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Five body slides (p.13, 16, 17, 21, 26) recycle the section title 'Refreshing the digital core with engineering and generative AI' instead of carrying their own action title
55
opening
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 4 Climate change & ecosystem at risk
“A solid trend-research deck with strong numerate action titles in the middle, but it opens with throat-clearing and lands with generic recommendations — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for SCQA structure.”
↓ First 5 slides are meta-context about the Trend Compendium rather than a thesis or hook — no SCQA opening
55
opening
SOUTHEAST ASIA’S GREEN ECONOMY 2024
“A thorough, well-pillared climate-intelligence report with a real S-C-A-R spine and strong analytical titling in the middle — use it as a teaching example for MECE section structure and stakeholder-segmented CTAs, but not for openings or closings, since the thesis arrives on p.16 and the calls to action are buried before a 30-page country appendix.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: first 5 slides are pure front-matter and pp.6-9 are four sequential forewords before any analytical content
55
opening
Education: 2023 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2024
“A competent thought-leadership / BD deck with metric-led titles in the retrospective half but no thesis upfront and no recommendation at the close — use the 2023 retrospective (pp. 6-15) and the AI mini-arc (pp. 39-42) as title-craft teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No thesis slide upfront — p.5 names 'four key themes' but the title doesn't enumerate them, forcing readers to discover them across 10+ slides
55
opening
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025: Hong Kong summary
“Solid analytical mid-deck with good action titles in the segment dives, but a weak thesis-free opening and a tangential Gen AI tail leave it as a useful teaching example for MECE segment build-up — not for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No SCQA hook in opening — p.4-5 establish scope without naming the central question or answer
55
opening
Global IPO Watch 2022
“A competent quarterly data bulletin with strong numbers and a thesis-bearing p.2 callout, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on action titles and ends without a recommendation — useful as a counter-example of why topic titles + appendix-as-ending kills narrative.”
↓ Zero recommendation or 'so what' — the deck ends on league tables and a disclaimer (p.12-14) with no implication for issuers, investors, or advisors
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
Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2017 The new luxury consumer
“A competent annual industry benchmark report with strong data and occasional insight-bearing titles, but structurally a topic-organized analytical dump with a buried thesis and an appendix close — use pp.13, 31, and 39 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on methodology/appendix/contacts (pp.47–52) with zero recommendation or 'so what' slide
55
opening
Digital Finance Seeing is Believing
“A competent webinar companion deck with a clean four-act journey and a strong case-study triptych, but interrogative titles and heavy front-matter make it only a mediocre Storymakers exemplar — use the Problem/Solution/Benefits case-study cadence as a teaching sample, not the overall title craft.”
↓ Six slides of webinar front-matter (p.1-6) before any content — thesis doesn't land until p.10, violating 'lead with the answer'
55
opening
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“A competently structured Deloitte research report with a genuine MECE spine and flashes of strong action-title writing, but it withholds the thesis, under-delivers the close, and leans on topic-label placeholders — use its 'four actions' scaffold as a pillar exemplar, not its opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis is withheld: the executive summary (p.3) describes scope rather than stating the answer, forcing readers to p.6 to meet the central question
55
opening
The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020
“A competently structured thought-leadership survey report with strong data presentation but a soft thesis and aspirational close - useful as a teaching example of chart-per-finding rhythm, not of SCQA narrative or prescriptive closings.”
↓ Generic repeated titles 'The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020' on p.5, p.19, and p.29 waste the most valuable real estate on the slide
55
opening
Mental health today A deep dive based on the 2023 Gen Z and Millennial survey
“A competent, research-backed Deloitte thought-leadership deck with the bones of a Storymakers arc but soft titles and a buried thesis - use p.5 and p.8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Multiple slides (p.7, p.15, p.22, p.23) carry the report's running header as their title, leaving the reader without an action title on key hinge pages - including the two final recommendation slides.
55
opening
Wealth and asset management 4.0
“A research-rich, well-evidenced industry report with strong action titles in the middle acts, but it buries its thesis under an 'Introduction' label and fails to land a specific recommendation across four identically-titled 'Calls to action' slides — use the mid-deck analytical titling as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ The opening buries the thesis — p.2 is titled 'Introduction' (a topic label), and the actual product-to-customer-centric argument only surfaces in the callout, not the title
55
opening
Fintech
“A competent analytical Deloitte industry report with strong action titles on the diagnostic slides but a missing 'Answer' act — use pages 9-11 as a teaching example of tension-carrying titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the cover tagline 'On the brink of further disruption' is never restated as a crisp SCQA answer
55
opening
Halifax 2024 FINAL 3
“A rigorous IPSOS public-opinion data report with MECE bones but no story arc — useful as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act reduce even strong research to a reference document, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are ~80% topic labels with colon-suffix pattern (p.22–31 all read 'Confidence in Government Response: X'; p.44–62 all read 'World Influencers: X') — the reader has to decode every chart
55
opening
Ipsos report Single use plastics
“A competently executed but narratively flat survey readout — strong as a reference document for the underlying data, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questions, the structure is a topic dump, and the deck ends without ever telling the reader what to do.”
↓ No synthesis or recommendation slide anywhere — the deck ends on p.31 with a producer-fee benchmark and jumps straight to methodology
55
opening
Ipsos SEA Ahead Shift + Sentiments 20211209
“A solid analytical research read-out with strong quantified action titles in its first pillar, but it functions as three stitched-together topic briefs rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as an example of action-title writing in the macro section, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis: p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' is a divider with no follow-through, then jumps straight to Q&A on p.34
55
opening
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor stability in an unstable world
“A solid thought-leadership research report with disciplined section structure but written as an essay, not a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of pillar organization and section-divider headlines, not of answer-first openings or actionable closes.”
↓ Five identical 'Concluding thoughts' titles (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) waste the highest-leverage slot in each section
55
opening
Global Advisor War in Ukraine
“A competent survey-findings report with MECE-ish pillars but no narrative arc — use it as a cautionary example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not verbs: p.3, p.7, p.9, p.12 all read as chart captions rather than insights
55
opening
cx global insights 2025 ipsos sneak peek
“A credible research teaser with strong stat-driven action titles in the middle, but it opens ceremonially and ends on a contact card — use p.5-p.9 as a teaching example of data-led titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.12 'For more information' substitutes a contact card for a call to action