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 28 / 46
58
opening
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? 2023
“Competent monthly survey-tracker report with strong stat callouts but topic-label titles, non-MECE sectioning, and no synthesis or call to action - useful as a 'before' teaching example for action-title rewriting and SCQA closure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution: deck closes on five country snapshots (p.24-28) and methodology (p.29) with zero synthesis, implication, or recommendation
58
opening
Capturing opportunities today, reinventing for tomorrow
“A competently structured three-act CEO-survey deck with a real recommendation page but weak title craft and a buried hook - useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline, not of action-title writing.”
↓ The killer stat (60% survival concern, p.3 foreword callout) is buried instead of opening the deck
58
opening
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights
“A polished annual research compendium with consistently strong action titles and an exemplary CX mini-arc (pp.58-77), but as a whole deck it is an eight-chapter trends catalogue rather than a single Storymakers argument — use the CX section as a teaching example of SCQA, not the overall structure.”
↓ No deck-level thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the first 5 pages — reader has to infer the argument from chapter titles
58
opening
Digitizing Make in India Report 2024
“A disciplined sector-intelligence report with exemplary parallel sub-structure inside Section 02, but it reads like an analytical reference manual rather than a Storymakers narrative — use the sunrise-sector template as a teaching example for MECE sub-pillars, not as a model for opening or closing a deck.”
↓ No answer-first opening: two 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' pages (pp. 5-6) use the label as the title instead of stating the thesis, and the first insight-bearing action title doesn't appear until p. 10.
58
opening
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
58
opening
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
58
opening
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
58
opening
The State of Luxury January 2025
“A competent McKinsey state-of-industry deck with strong insight-led titles in the analytical core but a generic opening and a thin recommendation tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts, not for narrative architecture or a punchy close.”
↓ No executive-summary / BLUF slide in the first three pages — the thesis has to be reconstructed from p.4 onward
58
opening
Generative AI Making Waves
“A well-structured analytical taxonomy with a memorable proprietary framework (WaveGram), but topic-label titles and a soft open/close make it a teaching example for framework design and MECE decomposition — not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Action titles are predominantly nouns/labels (p.20, p.26, p.28–34, p.43–49) — the deck reads as taxonomy, not argument
58
opening
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
58
opening
Talent trends 2020 Upskilling: Building confidence in an uncertain world Findings from PwC’s 23rd Annual Global CEO Surv
“A PwC thought-leadership PDF with a recognizable narrative spine and a few genuinely strong action titles, but it dilutes its own argument with topic-label sub-sections and a soft, generic recommendation — useful as a teaching example for the p11/p14 titles and the 'More talk than action' tension move, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Numbered challenge slides p15-p18 collapse to topic labels ('What skills to teach', 'Paying for it') instead of carrying the insight in the title
58
opening
Foodservice Market Monitor
“Analytically rigorous market monitor with above-average action titles, but structured as a data compendium that buries its single recommendation before a tool pitch — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for Storymakers arc design.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.4, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38) substitute for real MECE section dividers and break narrative momentum
58
opening
ipsos pride report 2025
“Syndicated research report with a strong 5-slide editorial summary bolted onto a 35-slide data appendix; use slides 5-9 as a Storymakers exemplar for translating data into narrative, but the overall structure is a topic dump, not a story.”
↓ Title duplication: 'LGBT Attitudes by Country' appears on at least 5 slides (11, 13, 15, 17, 23) with no insight extracted on the page itself
58
opening
International Women's Day 2023 full report
“A clean, well-segmented IPSOS research report that leads with findings but ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of disciplined section architecture and well-written callouts, but a cautionary example of titles-as-survey-questions and missing 'so what' resolution.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.16, p.17, p.18, p.19, p.20 all share the title 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?'
58
opening
Ipsos Global Advisor Earth Day 2023 Full Report WEB
“A competent Ipsos research tour with above-average action titles and pillar dividers, but it ends in a methodology-and-thank-you whimper with no recommendation — use the middle title craft as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on p.44 "THANK YOU" and p.45 "ABOUT IPSOS" with zero so-what
58
opening
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
58
opening
pwc my electric vehicle sales review q4 2024
“A competent quarterly data review with a strong opening hook and a few sharp regional titles, but it functions as a reference document rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3 and p.7 as title-writing examples, not the structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends in four consecutive 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables (p.19-22), then bios and 'Thank you' (p.25)
58
opening
20230608 172439 CWCU 9YRZMYZ26FO0PKXJ.1
“A competent quarterly REIT investor update with strong, metric-driven action titles, but it is a topic-organised reporting pack rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides like p20, p16 and p5 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No complication act — the deck never names a problem, risk or strategic question, so there is nothing for the analysis to resolve
58
opening
gpc genai ocsummaryv2 content
“A credible Gartner survey digest with a strong sample-size hook and decent per-function action titles, but structurally it is an analytical dump — no SCQA arc, blank section dividers, and a marketing CTA where the recommendation should be; use the per-function slides (p.26–36) as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Repeated identical titles on consecutive slides (p.4–6 'Barriers…', p.7–9 'Identifying… Benefits', p.10–12 'Pinpointing Use Cases') signal a topic dump rather than a build
58
opening
Wilton Park Policy Brief 17102024
“A competent policy-brief structure with a disciplined before/after analytical spine and one genuinely memorable number, but front-matter-heavy opening and a soft, appendix-trailing close make it a good teaching example of analytical rigor rather than of Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: 4 of the first 5 slides are front-matter or generically-titled summary; no page in the first third states the recommendation
58
opening
Accelerating Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
“An ESG compliance report dressed as a deck — front-loaded KPIs and a clean three-pillar spine are usable as teaching examples for section dividers, but topic-label titles, the missing complication act, and a 23-slide appendix tail make it a weak overall Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Closing collapses into a 23-slide appendix tail (pp.67-89) with no recommendation or forward-looking ask — the deck ends on a CPA assertion (p.87) and a URL (p.89), not an invitation
58
opening
2022 asset wealth management investor day
“A solid investor-day analytical build with a memorable five-pillar spine, but it skips the complication act and ends on KPIs rather than a commitment — use p.7-11 as a teaching example of MECE pillar structure, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'we're growing' (p.3-4) straight to 'here's how we'll keep growing' (p.5+) without naming the threat
58
opening
1100 Aircastle
“A competent investor-relations factbook with a thesis bookend and a few strong industry-trend titles, but a MECE-less middle and topic-label financials make it a cautionary Storymakers example rather than an exemplar — use pp.20-22 as a teaching moment on directional titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the investor's worry (leverage? cyclicality? AAM disruption?) so the analytical build has nothing to resolve.
58
opening
tifs investor presentation deutsche bank 17 june 21
“Competent IR deck with strong quantified middle-section titles but a weak hook and no closing ask — use the p.10–13 diversification/market-position slides as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck ends on a margin-expansion chart (p.33) and then jumps to Appendix with no recap of the investment case