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
146 matching · page 3 / 7
68
opening
Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference
“A tight 14-slide BCG press deck with strong declarative titles and a legible analytical arc, but it buries methodology up front and ends on a thesis restatement instead of a call to action: useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and paired contrast slides, not for closing structure.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide: the deck ends on a thesis restatement (p.13) followed by a brand cover, leaving the reader with a diagnosis but no prescription
68
opening
Port of LA Clean Truck Program
“A solid 2008 BCG business-case deck with a competent analytical spine and one exemplary action title at p.15, but the buried thesis and post-conclusion option dumps make it a teaching example for analytical rigor, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Structural misplacement: 'Agenda' divider at p.17 after the 'Conclusion' at p.16 inverts deck logic — option deep-dives (p.18-20) should precede, not follow, the recommendation
68
opening
A global view of how consumer behavior is changing amid COVID-19
“A well-titled McKinsey research briefing with a clean setup and a framework promise on p.4, but it is an S-C-A deck with the R amputated — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.18 heatmap + p.19 disclaimer with zero recommendations, implications, or next steps
68
opening
Covid 19: Briefing Materials
“A high-quality McKinsey briefing document with strong analytical craftsmanship and action-title discipline, but structurally a report not a story — useful as a teaching example for slide-level writing and quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Recommendation is buried at p.41-42 and limited to 'operating-model speed' — too narrow relative to the humanitarian, economic, and operational problems framed earlier
68
opening
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them
68
opening
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
68
opening
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
68
opening
Unlocking the next wave of digital growth: beyond metropolitan Indonesia
“A well-structured Kearney/Alpha JWC market report with disciplined action titles and a MECE four-act spine, but it buries its thesis under five forewords and dissipates its recommendation across the deck — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and segmentation storytelling, less so for opening hook or answer-first close.”
↓ Front matter is bloated — 5 forewords/quote slides (p.2–7) before the executive summary, burying the thesis
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
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
68
opening
Presentation+Leonardo+GS+Investor+Meeting
“A competent IR reporting deck with a thesis-first opening and several strong metric-bearing action titles, but fragmented by six agenda resets and fizzled by a financial-appendix ending — useful as a teaching example for numeric action titles (p.8, p.26, p.30), not for narrative arc or closing craft.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.2, 11, 21, 33, 35, 42) act as inert section gates instead of insight-bearing pillar dividers
65
opening
From survive to thrive Achieving tech transformation for communication service providers’ future
“A competent diagnostic-and-recommendations consulting deck with a clean three-pillar spine (p18-21) but topic-label titles and a buried call-to-action — use the transition slide and numbered recommendations as a Storymakers teaching example, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation on p8 ('Modern IT systems: A source of competitive advantage') arrives before the problem is fully framed on p9-10, muddying the S→C→A→R order
65
opening
Engaging Your Organization to Deliver Results
“A competent thought-leadership talk with strong declarative titles and well-placed stats, but it lacks section dividers and a prescriptive close — use its action titles and stat-anchored slides as teaching examples, not its overall skeleton.”
↓ No section dividers across 17 pages — the MECE pillars of the engagement model are implicit and the reader has to reconstruct the structure
65
opening
Outperformers High-Growth Emerging Economies
“A solid MGI-style analytical build with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it leads with description instead of stakes and ends on a URL — use the title-writing and case-study integration as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit complication/tension act — the deck moves from 'here is a fact' to 'here is the framework' without a 'why this matters now' beat
65
opening
Going full circle
“A competent research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a coherent diagnostic spine, but the thin opening and single-slide resolution make it a good teaching example for title craft and tension-building, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Opening is methodology-heavy: p.3 'Sample size by country' belongs in an appendix, not slide 3 of a 15-page argument.
65
opening
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
65
opening
Creating Value with GenAI in Asset Management
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and clear pillars, but it teaches opportunity sizing better than it teaches SCQA — use slides 5/6/16 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: the asset-management-specific number doesn't appear until p.6 after generic CEO/industry context
65
opening
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
65
opening
The State of Fashion Luxury
“A disciplined McKinsey/BoF analytical deck with strong data-bearing action titles and a clear three-act spine, but it diagnoses far better than it prescribes and closes on a single generic recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Closing recommendation (p.50) is generic and singular — the 'five strategic imperatives' teased on p.7 are never enumerated as a numbered close
65
opening
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
65
opening
ey uli fow global survey 2020 report
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with strong headline discipline but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide; deck dissolves into 'About ULI / About EY' on p.24-25 instead of resolving the argument
65
opening
20250311 jpm conference presentation
“A competent investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean closing arc, but front-matter-heavy and missing explicit MECE pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.9, p.13), not for overall structure.”
↓ 27% of the deck (p.1-4) is front matter before the thesis lands — disclaimer/glossary/agenda crowd out narrative real estate
62
opening
Global Banking Consumer Study Reignite human connections to discover hidden value
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with genuine MECE discipline and a strong hook, but it opens with context and closes with recap — use Chapter 2's pivot-to-play nesting as a teaching example of MECE layering, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 7 pages of 'forces' before the reader is told what to do about them
62
opening
TSS Index 2025 France
“A solid analytical BCG index deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the recommendation in one sparse slide and ends on a diagnostic rather than a close — use p.2-10 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Sector deep-dive titles (p.11 'Chemicals', p.12 'Transportation & Logistics', p.13 '2024 Performance Overview') are topic labels, not insights — loses the action-title thread built earlier