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
137 matching · page 2 / 6
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
72
opening
G@ Earth Day 2021
“A well-opened research report with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it ends in a topic-labelled data dump with no recommendation — use p.2–3 and p.8–10 as teaching examples for hooks and insight titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication or call-to-action slide — deck ends with 'THANK YOU' (p.44) and 'ABOUT IPSOS' (p.45) after a disclaimer
72
opening
IAB State of Data 2023
“A solid analytical industry report with strong title discipline on the diagnostic middle, but the recommendation is buried mid-deck and the close trails off into sponsor matter — use pp. 11-25 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation arc is buried — the recap fires on p. 26 but the deck continues for 21 more slides of frameworks, appendix, and sponsor content
72
opening
inv research 20231129 crypto asset survey 2023
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong MECE pillars and answer-first summaries, but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act make it useful as a teaching example of structure-without-argument rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation / 'so what' act — deck ends in an appendix with demographics (p.72), leaving the reader without next steps or policy implications
72
opening
AM EBA ST 2023 Results First Glance Analysis vf2 v1
“Solid analytical A&M update deck with a competent BLUF opening and MECE scaffolding, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for quantitative action titles, not for Storymakers arc closure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.25 with a cyber process diagram, then straight into appendices
72
opening
2020 cib investor day
“A textbook investor-day deck with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts but no SCQA tension and no synthesis close — use slides 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 34, 35 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p18, p19, p20) reuse essentially the same action title about «continuity and completeness in coverage» — a tell that the argument was not decomposed MECE before titling
70
opening
Innovate or Fade European businesses need to address the technology deficit to turn the tide
“A solidly structured three-pillar thought-leadership deck with a quantified hook and MECE prescriptions, but it buries its call to action in a one-line conclusion — use p.13/p.17/p.25 as a teaching example for numbered pillars, not as an example of how to close.”
↓ Closing is anemic: p.29 'Conclusion' with no numbered actions, deadlines, or owner — the deck dies before the appendix
70
opening
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“A well-titled macro chart pack masquerading as a narrative deck — use pages 5, 10, 13 and 15 as teaching examples of declarative action titles, but not the overall structure, which sets up tension then trails off into an indicator appendix with no recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.56 (credit-risk analysis) then p.57 About us, with zero recommendations, scenarios, or watch-items for the executive audience the TOC promised
70
opening
Secret of Transformations
“A solid McKinsey teaching/keynote deck with strong quantified evidence and a recognizable arc, but the interrogative titles, mid-deck survey detour, and missing recommendation make it a useful exemplar for analytical build-up — not for Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Survey for the audience' slides (p.8-13) interrupt the narrative and look like a workshop artifact, not a deck
70
opening
IPSOS POPULISM SURVEY
“A competent research-data report with a strong opening hook but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and section structure, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questionnaire text and the deck ends in branding rather than a 'so what'.”
↓ Titles are survey-question text, not action titles — slides 24-31 read like a questionnaire transcript, not an argument
70
opening
January Macro Brief
“A strong analytical brief with exemplary declarative action titles and well-placed recommendations, but it stops short of being a Storymakers exemplar because it never closes the loop — use p.5/p.13/p.24 as title-writing teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on trend #10 (p.40) then a team bio (p.41) with no 'what to do first' or consolidated action slide
70
opening
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent PwC benchmark report with strong data hygiene but weak narrative engineering — useful as a reference artifact and as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation hollow out an otherwise data-rich deck.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends in ranking tables (pp.22-26) and a value-distribution appendix (pp.29-33), not a "so what"
70
opening
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
70
opening
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“A short McKinsey POV primer with strong quantified action titles and a credible SCQA setup, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and impact sizing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution/recommendation slide — deck ends at slide 9 on an executive-sentiment data point with no 'so what'
68
opening
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition
“A solid analytical report with strong middle-act action titles, but it ends on a framework instead of a recommendation and hides its thesis behind scene-setting — use its analytical slides (p.8, p.22-25) as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ Resolution act is a framework, not a recommendation — p.32-33 tell brands to 'decide which role to play' without naming which roles or priorities
68
opening
Rise of Agentic AI Report
“A well-structured research report with solid MECE pillar dividers and strong data titles, but weakened by 20+ quote/filler slides that reuse the report title as a headline and a 25-slide firm-marketing tail that buries the client imperative — use its section architecture (pp 16/22/46/60/68) as a teaching example, not its openings or its close.”
↓ Roughly 1-in-5 slides use 'Rise of agentic AI: How trust is the key to human-AI collaboration' as the headline (quote and transition pages), abdicating the action-title discipline and forcing the callout to carry the argument
68
opening
Tested, Trusted, Transformed An exploration of the Corporate Affairs Function and its Leaders
“A competently structured research report with a memorable title device and a strong Five Maxims close, but titles carry topics not insights and the middle lacks narrative tension — use the bookend thesis and Five Maxims as teaching examples, not the interior title discipline.”
↓ Action titles are overwhelmingly questions or topic labels rather than insights (p.9, p.11, p.13, p.14, p.25) — a reader skimming the title stream cannot reconstruct the argument
68
opening
Southeast Asia’s digital consumers: A new stage of evolution
“A well-resourced thought-leadership report with a real S->C->A->R spine and many strong metric-anchored action titles, but the diluted opening, sprawling analytical middle and trailing close keep it as a solid B+ Storymakers exemplar rather than a top-tier one - useful as a teaching example for action-titles and pillar dividers, less so for opening/closing discipline.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Introduction' (pp 6-8) waste the opening real estate after a strong p5 hook
68
opening
The time for climate action is now
“A solid BCG thought-leadership piece with strong numerate action titles and a real S→C→R backbone, but the flat 7-action list and soft, appendix-tailed close make it a better teaching example for title quality than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Front matter bloat: p.1-3 all live in setup/context mode before the problem lands on p.5, burying the lede
68
opening
2021 Consumer Behavior Value Shake up
“A competent trend-report deck with strong declarative titles and a clear $2T thesis, but the ending repeats itself across three slides and the middle is a topic-tour rather than a MECE build — use the title craft and quote-slide rhythm as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Pages 18, 19, and 20 all orbit the same 'innovations powered by data' recommendation — p.18 and p.19 have essentially identical titles and callouts, which wastes the closing real estate
68
opening
10th Operations Efficiency Radar
“A solid, MECE-structured analytical study with above-average action titles in its core, but it opens with a three-part summary instead of a single thesis and closes with marketing rather than a CTA — use the analytical middle (p.14-26) as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Recommendation is buried — p.27 lands the call to action, but six more pages of framework/methodology/contacts follow, draining momentum
68
opening
Deloitte Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2022
“A competently-titled, MECE-organized thought-leadership survey deck that teaches strong action-title and callout discipline but diffuses its opening across four slides and buries its recommendations under a generic triple-header — use the per-slide titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Four-slide executive summary (p.2-5) dilutes the opening — the thesis should land on one slide
68
opening
Introduction to Ipsos May 2024
“A competent corporate capabilities deck with good action titles and a quantified spine, but it's a company tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for title craft, not as an exemplar of SCQA structure or a strong close.”
↓ Duplicate titles on p.10 and p.11 («OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA» / «...THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA») — an editing miss that fractures the strategy section
68
opening
Education Monitor 2024 Ipsos
“A competent research-monitor publication with a strong answer-first opening and several model action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 4-14 and pp. 20/46 as teaching examples of insight titling, and use the pp. 47-58 sequence as a cautionary example of MECE failure and of a deck that analyses without ever recommending.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on methodology (p.73) and 'For more information' (p.74), with no recommendation or call to action