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 35 / 46
52
opening
Introduction to Bain and Report on Resilience
“A well-argued Bain keynote with a memorable hook and a complete S->C->A->R arc, but a slow credentials-first opening, an unfulfilled 'Five Myths' promise, and a limp 'Thank you' close keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - useful for teaching declarative titles (P7, P19) and proprietary-index positioning, not for teaching deck architecture.”
↓ First four slides are Bain credentials/speakers/divider - the real narrative doesn't start until P5 and the thesis doesn't crystallize until P7
52
opening
The importance of being human in a digital world
“Research-report-style thought-leadership deck with a strong unifying metaphor and a genuine two-pillar MECE spine, but titles recycle section labels instead of carrying per-slide insights — useful as a teaching example of anchor-phrase discipline, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles collapse into section labels — five consecutive slides (p.7, 9, 10, 11, 12) all titled '03 Key research findings' with no per-slide insight, forcing the reader to mine the body for the point
52
opening
The CMO Survey The Highlights and Insights Report February 2022
“A well-titled, well-segmented industry survey report — useful as a teaching example for declarative action titles and callout discipline, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis, no MECE argument, and no recommendation.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck ends at p.93 on a cover page with zero 'so what' for the CMO reader
52
opening
2023 SEA Hospital Insights Survey Findings Summary materials
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative titles and MECE-ish themes, but no recommendation arc — use the title-writing and section discipline as a teaching example, not the narrative structure.”
↓ No synthesis or recommendation slide — the deck ends on a finding (p.40) and jumps to L.E.K. self-promo
52
opening
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
“A rigorous, MECE-disciplined UK government-policy advisory deck with an admirably explicit recommendation thread - use the numbered-pillars structure (10 practicalities, 8 options) and the recommendation->timeline close as Storymakers teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which buries the rail-industry context in an end-of-deck appendix and opens too slowly to surface the thesis.”
↓ Background-on-the-industry section (p.134-170, 37 slides) sits at the END rather than the front, so context that should have set up the stakes instead trails the recommendation and dilutes the close
52
opening
Moving faster: Reinventing compliance to speed up, not trip up
“A well-architected survey-report-as-deck with disciplined sectioning and a memorable Compliance Pioneer payoff, but action titles default to topic labels and the close substitutes metaphor for a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for repeating per-pillar 'Actions' beats, not for headline writing.”
↓ Action titles overwhelmingly topic labels (e.g. p.11 'Negative impacts of increased complexity', p.17 'A different way', p.34 'Culture of compliance') — the insights live in callouts, not headlines
52
opening
2022 Environmental, Social, Governance Report
“A disciplined but title-flat ESG compliance report with clean pillar architecture and real metrics buried in callouts; useful as a teaching example of MECE section dividers, but a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, and closing call-to-action.”
↓ Zero action titles in 48 narrative pages — every headline is a noun phrase ('TALENT DEVELOPMENT', 'PAY PRACTICES & PAY EQUITY', 'HUMAN RIGHTS') so a reader skimming titles learns the agenda but no insights
52
opening
Global Shared Services 2017 Survey Report
“A data-rich survey report with good insights trapped in the callouts — useful as a teaching case for how topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act can flatten strong evidence into a 'results walkthrough', not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Operations and governance' is reused verbatim across p.9–12 with zero differentiation
52
opening
2022 retail industry outlook
“A compact, co-branded Deloitte+Workday POV with a workable problem→answer spine but topic-labelled bookends and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of mid-deck action titles (p.5, p.7), not of opening or closing craft.”
↓ p.3 'Executive summary' is a label, not a thesis — the deck never leads with its answer
52
opening
2019 Global Shared Services Survey Report 11th biannual edition
“A competently structured Deloitte survey-findings report with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — use it as a teaching example of the gap between insightful callouts and weak action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — p7, p8, p10, p13, p15, p16, p18, p19, p21, p22 all read as interview prompts rather than conclusions
52
opening
Global Business Services Performance improvement
“A thought-leadership whitepaper in deck form — usable as a 'numbered-guide scaffolding' example but not a Storymakers exemplar because it skips the answer-first opening, uses imperative topic titles instead of insight titles, and breaks its own six-step MECE promise.”
↓ Action titles are imperatives ('Develop…', 'Focus on…', 'Extend…') rather than insight-bearing declaratives
52
opening
Southeast Asia's Green Economy
“A disciplined, MECE-structured co-branded report with a clean S-C-A-R spine and unusually tight quantitative reconciliation — use its chapter skeleton and exec-summary sequencing as a teaching example, but not its opening (13 pages of forewords before the thesis) or its appendix-style country section.”
↓ Opening buried behind 13 pages of sponsor forewords (p.9-13) — the thesis on p.16 should be on p.1 or p.8
52
opening
inv research 20210422 investing and covid 19 0
“A competent Ipsos research report with a front-loaded exec summary but a topical, SCQA-free structure and no recommendation - mine p.6-9 and p.31-32 as teaching examples of insight titles, but do NOT use the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in the deck; closes on a neutral stat (p.55) then appendix and contact info (p.60)
52
opening
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
52
opening
barclays ceo energy power conference 2018
“A competent investor-conference deck with pockets of strong Storymakers craft (action titles p.6/p.7/p.14, quantified callouts p.9-p.13) but no SCQA spine and a topic-label closing — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening delays the thesis: disclaimer (p.2) + tagline (p.3) + framework stub (p.4) + identity (p.5) burn four slides before any insight
50
opening
European Distressed Credit Watch List
“A competently produced reference catalogue of distressed European credits with strong market-context data on the front end, but it abandons narrative craft at the case-study section and has no close — useful as a teaching example of what 'analytical dump with no resolution' looks like, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends mid-catalogue at p.39 (Winoa) then jumps to contacts
50
opening
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
50
opening
Out @ Work Barometer
“A competently titled survey readout with strong individual insight slides (especially the p.11 paradox) but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends at p.13 on a diagnosis ('missing out on talent')
50
opening
Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter
“Solid BCG explanatory brief with a coherent 'leapfrogging' throughline and strong US-China benchmarking, but structured as analytical build-up rather than a Storymakers story — thesis buried, dividers blank, recommendations absent — so use the market-sizing and leapfrogging sections as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the 'leapfrogging' answer doesn't arrive until p.25/26, and there is no upfront thesis slide summarizing the deck's point of view
50
opening
Deloitte Global Treasury Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with clean pillar structure and strong data, but not a Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach MECE sectioning and data callouts, not narrative arc or action titling.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.20 on a trend observation before 'Contact us'
50
opening
Georgia Medicaid 1115 1332 Waiver
“A competent proposal-format deck with strong credentialing moments but no narrative arc and no ask — useful as a Storymakers counter-example of how 'Phase X: topic' titling and a 'Questions & Discussion' close flatten an otherwise substantive engagement plan.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never states Georgia's specific complication or the answer before diving into methodology
50
opening
GenAI retail commercial banking
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative action titles in its analytical middle, but it reads as a research dump rather than an argument — use pp.8-18 as a teaching example for metric-anchored titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do about it' slide — the deck ends at p.22 with a use-case list and never resolves the S→C→A→R arc
50
opening
Familiar challenges new approaches
“A competent survey report with a clean three-pillar spine but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for chapter dividers and quote-slide pacing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Many data slides ship the raw 'Exhibit N: <question text>' as the title (p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.24, p.30) — the chart caption is doing the work an action title should
50
opening
2024 US CEO Outlook Pulse Survey
“A survey-results pulse report dressed as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on an ESG data point (p.10) and a disclaimer (p.11) with zero recommendations, implications, or call to action