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
635 matching · page 4 / 27
72
opening
AUTOMOTIVE –OES
“Competent Accenture research report with a legible SCQA spine and strong quantified titles, but the recommendation act is under-built relative to the diagnosis — use the opening (p.2-4) and transitions (p.19, p.22) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the resolution.”
↓ The 'four best practices' resolution (p.20-21) is compressed — practices 1-2 barely visible, 3-4 share one slide
72
opening
Make the leap, take the lead: Tech strategies for innovation and growth
“A well-architected analytical thought-leadership deck with a strong MECE pillar (Replatform/Reframe/Reach) and quantified narrative — use it as a teaching example for pillar design and action-titling, but not for opening hook or closing CTA.”
↓ The headline insight (5x growth gap) is buried until p.6 — the cover (p.1) and opening context (p.2) waste the highest-attention real estate.
72
opening
The productivity push Powering the UK’s performance with five digital capabilities
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership piece with an exemplary MECE pillar section (p.14-30) but a marketing-style close — use the five-capability build as a teaching example of parallel pillar structure, not as a model for opening hooks or consultative recommendations.”
↓ Repetitive topic-label titles in the capability deep-dives ('Industry view', 'Capability in action' repeated 5x each) instead of slide-specific insights
72
opening
Thought you knew the Scope 3 issues in your supply chain? Think again.
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with a strong hook and a clean five-action closer, but its analytical middle leans on figure-label titles and its conclusion softens the punch - useful as a teaching example for SCQA pacing and imperative recommendation blocks, not for action-title discipline.”
↓ Figure/Table slides (p.9, p.10, p.12, p.13, p.17) use chart-label titles ('Figure 1: Distribution of upstream emissions by supplier tier') instead of action titles stating what the data proves
72
opening
Total Enterprise Reinvention
“A well-architected analytical build with a strong MECE spine and quantitative callouts, undermined by a question-list ending and recycled titles — use pp.20/26-48 as a teaching example of pillar structure, but not the opening or close.”
↓ Resolution is a question list, not a recommendation — p.55 'Charting a path' offers 'four categories of questions' instead of prescriptive next steps
72
opening
Investor Analyst Conference
“A competent investor-conference results parade with genuinely strong declarative titles in the analytical middle, but it lacks narrative tension, MECE pillar scaffolding, and a real close -- use p.6/p.11/p.13 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p.14-16) share the exact same title 'Highlights of our 360 value for all our stakeholders' -- signals a topic dump where pillar discipline should live
72
opening
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
72
opening
Mastering Marketing Measurement
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles in its benchmark half, but the narrative doubles back on itself and closes on a soft 'getting started' frame rather than a sharp recommendation - use pp.10-15 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Structural redundancy: the six steps are introduced on pp.4-8 and then re-litigated on pp.9-15 without a clear distinction between 'what leaders do' and 'why it works'
72
opening
2017 China Luxury Market Study
“A well-titled analytical market briefing with strong pull-quotes but no prescriptive payoff — use it as a teaching example for action titles and evidence-backed callouts, not for story architecture or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.15 and p.19 hint at brand plays but none crystallize a prescriptive next step
72
opening
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements
72
opening
Good as Gold: Resilience and Continued Attractiveness of the Global K-12 Sector
“A solid narrowing-funnel thought-leadership piece with mostly good action titles and a clean 3-pillar structure, but it buries the recommendation under a 9-slide identically-titled data dump — use the p.3-22 analytical build as a teaching example, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides (p.26-34) with the literally identical title 'Overall growth in the premium segment…(X of 9)' — the single biggest narrative failure, forcing the reader to do all the synthesis
72
opening
L.E.K. ASC Insights Study MedTech Publication Deck
“Lead-gen publication deck with unusually strong action titles and a clean analytical middle, but a hollow recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ p.16 'framework_other' poses questions instead of answering them — the deck stops one slide short of a recommendation
72
opening
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
72
opening
USPS Envisioning Americas Future Postal
“A textbook McKinsey diagnosis deck with a strong quantified middle but a buried thesis and a stakeholder-cautious close — use p.4-15 as a teaching example for analytical buildup, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried answer — the headline number ($238B loss, $15B residual gap) doesn't land until p.13-18, so the first third reads as analytical buildup rather than a thesis-led deck
72
opening
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
72
opening
Reinventing Construction Higher Productivity
“A solid MGI extract with strong quantified opening and clean action-title style, but repeated CONTENTS dividers and a hedged close make it a better teaching example for title-writing than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Three identical 'CONTENTS' slides (p.2, p.7, p.11) substitute for proper pillared dividers and break narrative momentum
72
opening
The Heartbeat of Progress
“A competent OliverWyman thought-leadership study with strong action titles and a BLUF opening, but it ends in a soft conclusion plus decorative filler — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 17 pages flow as a topic list, hurting orientation
72
opening
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
72
opening
the true value of green: willingness to pay for sustainability in consumer & home electronics
“Solid analytical mid-section with declarative titles and a clear conjoint backbone, but the deck buries its recommendation in a single 'Key takeaways' label - use slides 5-10 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is a single label slide ('Key takeaways', p.13) with no recommendation, action, or next step for the audience
72
opening
Blurred lines FinTech 2016
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and disciplined 'so what?' moments, but it leans analytical-heavy and fizzles at the close — useful as a teaching example for answer-first openings and rhetorical titles, less so as a model of resolution.”
↓ Closing is anticlimactic — p.29 'Conclusion' is a generic label and there is no explicit recommendation or action slide before the appendix dump
72
opening
Global Family Business Survey 2018
“A well-architected survey report with strong pillar dividers and case-study cadence, but it leans on topic-label titles and a tacked-on PE section — useful as a teaching example for sectional structure and case interleaving, not for action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles are mostly topic labels or repeated deck-name headers ('PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' on 7+ slides) — the headline real estate is wasted
72
opening
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing
72
opening
Megatrend 2 Health & Care
“A well-titled, evidence-rich trend compendium with a clean SCQA setup and a real recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantitative callouts, but its 40-slide undivided analytical middle makes it a weak structural exemplar of MECE pillar architecture.”
↓ 40+ consecutive analyze_data / industry_trends slides (pp.12-54) with no breather, summary, or pillar divider — reads as a topic dump rather than a story
72
opening
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question