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 3 / 46
78
opening
Impact of IRA IIJA CHIPS Clean Tech
“A tight, answer-first policy-impact deck with strong quantified action titles but a softened arc (complication after analysis) and a topic-label closing — use p.3-p.6 as a teaching example for headline writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Complication slides (p.7 'Pre-legislation challenges', p.8 'Remaining challenges') land after the impact sizing, weakening the SCQA tension that would normally precede the analysis
78
opening
AI Radar C-Suite Agenda
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with a clean tension pivot and strong action titles, but the middle lacks MECE scaffolding and the recommendation is compressed into one slide — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing and S→C→A hinges, less so for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillar signposting — the middle (pp.10-17) reads as a sequence of 'winners do X' observations rather than a structured framework
78
opening
Winning on the Margins TeBIT 2023
“A competent BCG benchmark readout with declarative titles and a solid opening, but it buries its recommendation and ends on an observation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and S->C openings, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — p.14 ends on an observation, burying the call to action
78
opening
AI Raising Stakes Cybersecurity
“Solid BCG research slideshow with a clean S→C→A→R spine and strong declarative titles, but the recommendation is compressed into one slide — use it as a teaching example for action titles and opening stakes, not for resolution design.”
↓ Resolution is undersized — a single p.20 priorities slide has to carry the entire «what to do» after 10 diagnostic slides
78
opening
AI at Work APAC
“A solid BCG survey-insight deck with strong action titles and a real tension, but it buries the complication mid-deck and ends on a topic-labeled imperatives page — use pp.5-15 as a teaching example for declarative analytical titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ The tension slide (p.11) arrives at slide 11 of 22 — the 'fear' complication should enter earlier to tension the optimism narrative built in pp.4-10.
78
opening
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
78
opening
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“Well-architected four-pillar consulting report with a strong SCQA opening but no closing synthesis — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for pillar structure and tension-framing, not for resolution or action-titling discipline.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on a GPS case study (p.43) then jumps to acknowledgments; the four-action framework is never recapped or converted into a call to action
78
opening
ICO Class of 2017
“A tight, thesis-led analytical report with strong action titles in the middle, but it ends on a topic label instead of a recommendation — use pp2-10 as a teaching example of quantified action titles, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide — p11 'Key takeaways and outlook' is a topic label with a hedged VC-comparison callout
78
opening
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
78
opening
USPS Future Business Model
“A solid diagnostic-and-options McKinsey deck with a strong quantified middle act but a weak topic-dump close — use pp.3-19 and pp.22-29 as a Storymakers exemplar for SCQA build and quantified action titles, not the recommendation section.”
↓ Closing collapses into topic-label dumps (pp.33-37) — 'Pricing opportunities for USPS', 'Workforce opportunities for USPS' — none carry an insight
78
opening
Affordable Housing Challenge Blueprint
“A well-framed analytical deck with a clean MECE spine and quantified body slides, but it ends with a 'Thank you' instead of a recommendation and trails into a disorganized appendix — use the opening and four-lever build-up as a Storymakers exemplar, not the close.”
↓ Closing collapse: 'Thank you!' on p.35 is followed by 14 pages of appendix-style content (p.36-49) with no synthesis or call to action
78
opening
Medical Affairs Japan
“A solid analytical-pillar deck with a clear thesis and MECE spine, but it ends without a recommendation - use pp.6-10 as a teaching example for SCQA setup and Yet-pivots, not for how to close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide near the end; p.20 merely restates the opening thesis
78
opening
Global Oil Outlook 2040
“A tight, well-titled market-outlook summary that opens strongly and writes excellent action titles, but stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on analysis (p.7) then boilerplate (p.8-9), violating the Resolution act
78
opening
GenAI German Labor Market
“A well-evidenced analytical build with strong quantified action titles, but the story arc resolves twice and never closes — use the p.10-16 analytical sequence as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing call-to-action — deck trails off on benchmarking (p.23) and a logo slide (p.24) instead of a 'so what / now what' resolution
78
opening
CO2 Emissions Report
“A solid analytical benchmark report with a strong opening thesis and quantified stakes, undermined by a near-total absence of slide-level action titles and a flat 'Get in touch' close — useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline and OEM-benchmark structure, but a cautionary case for title craft.”
↓ Title repetition: ~75% of slides recycle the report tagline as the action title, forcing insight into callouts and breaking the Storymakers principle of 'read the titles, get the story'
78
opening
Customers in spotlight FinTech banking
“A competent industry-trends brief with a strong opening hook and credible data, but the recommendation act is a single slide — useful as an example of leading with the answer, weaker as a model of MECE pillars or a built-out resolution.”
↓ Recommendation act is one slide deep (p.9) — the 'win-win partnership' thesis on p.8 deserves its own build of how/who/when, not a single conclusion paragraph
78
opening
Crisis Preparedness 2019
“A thesis-driven survey deck with above-average action titles and a clean bookend, but the four sections are topical rather than MECE and the 'do these 5 things' recommendation is referenced rather than delivered — useful as a teaching example for hooks and headline writing, not for resolution structure.”
↓ p10 and p20 use 'PwC Global Crisis Survey 2019' as the slide title — brand chrome where the insight should be (74% sought outside help; preparedness as competitive advantage)
78
opening
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
78
opening
FinTechs in Europe – Challenger and Partner
“A well-structured Roland Berger survey deck with a thesis-first opening and disciplined action titles, but back-loaded recommendations make it a strong exemplar for analytical build-up and pillar structure rather than for resolution.”
↓ Resolution is thin: only p.34-35 carry the 'fields of action' — a single recommendation slide for 30 slides of build-up
78
opening
Retail banking survey Sustainability and retail banking
“Competent short-form thought-leadership whitepaper with a clear risk thesis but topic-label titles and a thin recommendation - useful as a teaching example for callout writing and S->C->A->R skeleton, not for action-title craft or closing punch.”
↓ Page titles are nouns/topics, not declarative insights - the strong callouts on p.4, p.6, p.8 should have been promoted to titles
78
opening
Global Pricing Study 2011
“A short research-summary teaser with strong headline-title discipline on its analytical slides but no recommendation and a self-promotional close — useful as an exemplar of insight titles, not of full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.9 with a firm-credentials slide ('No. 1 in marketing and sales in Germany')
78
opening
Sustainability Study 2019
“Solid analytical mini-study with strong numerate action titles, but it is a research-findings deck dressed as a pitch — use pp.6–11 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc, which buries the recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/so-what slide — deck ends on firm credentials (p.13) and 'Thank you!' (p.14), throwing away the analytical build-up
78
opening
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
78
opening
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question