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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on opening
- 88 Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale McKinsey · 2016
- 88 American Express Investor Day 2024 McKinsey · 2024
- 85 Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021 Accenture · 2021
- 85 Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound McKinsey · 2021
- 84 Global Pricing Sales Study 2017 SimonKucher · 2017
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “Competent consulting thought-leadership report with a strong quantified hook and three-pillar structure, but weakened by redundant titling and a missing call-to-action — use the opening bookend (p.2-3) and case-study pairing pattern as teaching examples, not the overall structure.” — Accenture, 2023
- “A well-crafted thought-leadership narrative with a strong opening and a memorable proprietary framework, but it trails off into case studies and a soft CTA instead of landing a prescriptive recommendation — use the opening and quantified-stakes sections as teaching examples, not the closing.” — Accenture, 2020
- “A disciplined Accenture thought-leadership deck with a genuine SCQA spine and a clean five-pillar recommend+case-study build — use the divider ladder and pillar pairing as a teaching example, but not the soft landing or the label-style analytical titles.” — Accenture, 2022
- “A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.” — BCG, 2020
- “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.” — BCG, 2019
- “Short analytical index-release with a strong hook and mostly declarative titles but no resolution - use p.1-p.2 as an opening-hook exemplar, not as a full Storymakers arc.” — BCG, 2024
- “A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.” — BCG, 2025
- “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.” — Bain, 2016
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 23 / 46
62
opening
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
62
opening
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
62
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
62
opening
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument
62
opening
Ipsos Populism Final February 2024
“A competent global survey readout with a strong paradox hook on p.3 that the rest of the deck fails to honor — usable as a teaching example of how survey-question titles and a missing recommendation act flatten an otherwise promising argument, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.35 title contains an unresolved template placeholder '[NOUN FOR PEOPLE FROM COUNTRY, PLURAL]' — a proofreading failure that undermines credibility
62
opening
Ipsos Health Service Report 2024 Global Charts
“A market-research findings report dressed as a deck — strong opening stat and clean three-pillar tour, but it uses survey questions as titles, never resolves into a recommendation, and is therefore a Storymakers anti-example for titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Survey questions used as slide titles ~15 times (p.7, 20-28, 30-40, 42-47) — the action title is doing none of the storytelling work, callouts have to carry it
62
opening
inv research 20220928 crypto asset survey EN
“A competent topic-organized survey report with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — use the p.5-8 Key Findings pattern as a teaching example of leading with the answer, but not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — p.12 'Crypto Ownership' instead of '13% of Canadians own crypto, skewing young, male and investor-leaning'
62
opening
Ipsos Global Happiness Index 2025 1
“A solid research-data report with two strong insight titles but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 7-9 as examples of good action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at heatmaps (p.19-20) and jumps straight to Methodology — no synthesis, recommendation, or implication slide
62
opening
what worries the world november 2024 ipsos
“A competent recurring data tracker with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how callouts should be promoted to action titles, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights: 'Current Economic Situation' is reused on 12 consecutive slides (p.35-46) with no differentiation
62
opening
Ipsos Equalities Index 2023 Full report
“A well-instrumented opinion-research data book with a strong 20-page narrative front and a 50-page reference back, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.1–20 to teach answer-first openings and quotable callouts, and use the appendix as a cautionary example of topic-label titling.”
↓ Action titles are survey-question labels, not insights — the same question text is reused on 20+ appendix slides (pp.30–51)
62
opening
Ipsos Populism Survey 2024
“A competent survey-results report with a strong early statistic and a clean composite index, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary tale — topic-taxonomy spine, question-as-title convention, and no resolution act; use the callout discipline and the p22 index construction as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or 'so what' act — the deck ends on p48 spending data, then methodology, then a brand tagline (p52 'BE SURE. ACT SMARTER.')
62
opening
Introduction to Ipsos
“A competent corporate-intro deck with declarative titles and hard numbers, but structurally a topic tour without SCQA tension or a closing ask — use slides 5, 8, and 14 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Slides 10 and 11 carry near-duplicate titles ('OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA' / 'OUR STRATEGY BEING THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA') — wasted real estate and a signal of weak editing
62
opening
IEI 2024 Global Charts
“A competently organised annual research index with a summary-first opening and a handful of strong action titles, but it is an analytical readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because most titles restate survey questions and the deck ends without a recommendation or call to action.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on a data chart (p.38) then methodology, with the closing slide (p.41) reduced to a contact card
62
opening
ipsos reputation council report 2024
“A competent thought-leadership compendium with strong problem framing and quantified pull-quotes, but its topic-label titles, four 'Conclusion' slides, and missing closing recommendation make it a teaching example of analytical depth without a Storymakers narrative spine.”
↓ Four slides titled simply 'Conclusion' (p10, p15, p20, p25) — wasted real estate that should carry the section's takeaway in the title
62
opening
original
“A competent investor-relations deck with a stated thesis and solid supporting data, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc — no Complication, no Resolution, and topic-labeled data slides — so use it to teach how quantification should support a thesis, not as a model for narrative structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never articulates what challenge, risk, or decision the audience must resolve; it is a confidence monologue
62
opening
The evolving private equity playbook
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a recognizable SCQA spine and strong quantified middle, but the opening buries its hook behind front-matter and the close fragments the recommendation — use the p.7, p.13 and p.16 titles as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Case study on p.4 precedes the problem framing on p.6–7, so the reader sees a 'result' before understanding what problem it solves
62
opening
ey q2 2020 global ipo trends report v1
“A competent quarterly market-trends report with strong regional analysis but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.6, p.13, p.15) and MECE-by-geography coverage, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends at p.25 with a soft EY house-ad and tips into a six-page appendix without a 'so what / do this next' slide
62
opening
ey eurelectric flexibility study 2025 20250306
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership report with strong data anchors and a real chapter arc, but it front-loads its argument into a 7-page exec summary and recycles chapter names as slide titles — use Chapter 5 (p39–40) and the quote slides as Storymakers exemplars, but treat the title craft and CTA as cautionary cases.”
↓ Multiple slides reuse the chapter divider as their own action title (p12 and p15 both titled 'Why flexibility matters and how much is enough'; p33 and p34 both titled 'What it takes to unlock flexibility potential') — squandering the headline real estate
62
opening
ey global ipo trends 2023 q1 v1
“A competent quarterly market-update deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but no Resolution act — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.10 SPAC data and goes straight to Definitions/Contacts, leaving the reader without a recommendation
62
opening
160316 BBVA MS Conference tcm927 569522
“A competently structured investor-conference deck with a real SCQA spine and disciplined geography slides, but it under-delivers on opening hook and closing recommendation — useful as a section-divider exemplar, not as a Storymakers closing-act model.”
↓ p.29 'Conclusions' is a label, not a recommendation — no quantified ask, no memorable close
62
opening
ey industry pulse report travel and tourism
“A disciplined industry-pulse report with a genuine three-act MECE spine and largely declarative titles, but it buries the lead, repeats the same action title across paired slides, and dissolves into a funding-catalogue close — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Action titles are duplicated verbatim across consecutive slides at least seven times (p6/7, p10/11, p13/14, p15/16, p17/18, p19/20, p23/24), wasting the build-up
62
opening
Goldman Sachs 2022 final
“A competent, well-structured investor presentation with a clean four-pillar spine and a few exemplary action-title pairs (p.12–13, p.22), but it buries its thesis in a callout and never names the complication or the ask — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar architecture, not for Storymakers narrative tension.”
↓ p.4 'Investment thesis' buries the actual thesis in a callout instead of putting it in the title — the strongest line in the deck is the smallest text on the page
62
opening
2022 firm overview
“A confident, numbers-forward investor overview with strong action titles but a buried thesis and no MECE spine — useful as a reference for declarative, metric-anchored titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the deck takes until p.4-6 to assert leadership and until p.16 to land the ROTCE target; nothing on p.1-3 previews the answer
62
opening
Consolidated Full Presentation
“A disciplined investor-day portfolio update with strong action-title and callout craft within each LOB, but no firm-wide story arc — use individual sections (especially the CCB Banking and CIB Markets builds) as teaching examples for slide-level Storymakers discipline, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No firm-wide narrative spine: the macro tension on p.7 and p.16 never resolves into a 'so therefore' for the whole firm — it dissolves into five parallel LOB stories