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 43 / 46
38
opening
Charging Ahead Australia’s battery powered future
“This is an Accenture capabilities/credentials deck dressed as a research report — structurally tidy but narratively flat, with a context-heavy open and a case-study close; useful as an example of section-divider hygiene and MECE frameworks, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is pure decarbonization context, never states the answer (pp.1-5)
38
opening
Digital Revolution Awards
“A two-part thought-leadership compendium with strong callouts and a few sharp action titles in the first half, but absent thesis, broken pillar promise, and a missing recommendation make it unfit as a Storymakers exemplar — mine individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call to action — deck ends at p.36 on the Bain logo with no synthesis slide
38
opening
Banking and capital markets trends 2020: Laying the foundations for growth
“A reference catalog masquerading as a deck — useful as a topic checklist for an internal audit team but a poor Storymakers exemplar; cite it only as a counter-example of how topic-labels and pagination suffixes erase narrative.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 88 slides and not one declarative finding in the title bar
38
opening
ey ivca monthly pe vc roundup february 2023
“A competent monthly data roundup that is structurally a reference document, not a story — useful as an example of clean section dividers and metric-led callouts, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis-led opening, no Complication-Resolution arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or outlook close — deck ends in EY service marketing (p.26–31) and contacts, abandoning the reader after the data
38
opening
Fresenius SE 2023 06 13 14 Goldman Sachs 44th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
“A standard corporate IR deck with disciplined callouts and one strong transformation thesis (ReSet→ReVitalize) that is buried on p.18 and never re-asserted at close — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label dividers and an appendix-heavy tail dilute an otherwise defensible narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.18 — first 5 slides are cover/disclaimer/agenda/divider/generic context with no stakes or answer-first framing
38
opening
GSBD Investor Presentation Q1 2023 vF
“A standard BDC earnings/reference deck — competent as financial disclosure but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titling and missing narrative acts.”
↓ Zero action titles across 14 slides — every title is a noun label (e.g. 'Quarterly Balance Sheet', 'Debt'), forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
38
opening
3Q23 Investor Presentation GS
“A classic IR/positioning deck structured as a capabilities tour — strong quantified callouts and solid competitive benchmarks, but no SCQA arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles dominate; use p7–p10 as a teaching example of competitive benchmarking, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution — deck never poses the question it is answering, and never lands a recommendation or ask
38
opening
barclays global credit bureau forum v30
“Competent investor-day roadshow with strong slide-level quantified titles inside each segment, but no overarching narrative spine or closing synthesis — use the mid-section analytical build-ups (Ascend p.26, Verify p.29–30, Serasa p.50–60) as teaching examples of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck leads with agenda/CFO Q&A instead of an answer-first insight
38
opening
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
35
opening
Introduction to A&M Services in Asia
“A standard firm-capabilities brochure organized by practice area — useful as an anti-example of 'no SCQA, no close' and of topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck never poses a client Question, so there is no Answer to build toward; it is an undifferentiated service catalog
35
opening
Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2
“A dense, methodologically rigorous reference pack of ~13 defense-efficiency initiatives with strong per-initiative build-up but no global narrative spine — use the inner initiative templates (e.g., car-pool pp.193–228 or category-management pp.54–82) as teaching examples of structured analytical build, not the overall deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary or total-potential slide anywhere in the first 8 pages — the deck has no global answer-first opening, just TOCs (p.2–8) before jumping into Initiative 1 on p.9.
35
opening
The Shopping Centre Handbook 4.0
“A competent Spanish retail-real-estate market handbook whose analytical middle is usable as a teaching example for KPI-page cadence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: topic-label titles, no call to action, and an S→A→A structure that ends on observation rather than resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere — the 'What is Next?' section (pp 26-30) ends on description, then the deck closes with a team bio (p 31)
35
opening
Scott Anthony Press Kit
“A functional press kit, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful only as a negative example of topic-label titles and a missing CTA close.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'SPEAKING TOPICS' (pp. 3-5) — no differentiation, no progression, reads as a topic dump
35
opening
Japan Hospital Insights Survey Findings Summary materials
“A disciplined survey-findings report with strong declarative action titles and clean MECE pillar dividers, but it buries the thesis behind methodology and ends as a sales pitch — borrow its titling and section-divider discipline, not its overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns 6 pages on methodology before a single finding (pp 1–6); the thesis is never stated up front
35
opening
Innovation Engine for Growth Playbook
“A solid methodology playbook with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, undermined by a marketing-brochure opening, topic-label titles, and excessive divider padding — use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the narrative or title craft.”
↓ Slides 1–5 burn the entire opening on cover/filler/dividers/TOC; thesis doesn't appear until p.6 — fails the 'lead with the answer' test
35
opening
Re-Imagine the Possible 2018/2019
“A topic-organized budget walkthrough with strong numerical content but weak narrative scaffolding — useful as a teaching example of how MECE pillars and quantitative anchors are necessary but not sufficient without action titles and an explicit thesis.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is cover/agenda/divider/divider/framework with no stated point of view
35
opening
Annual Report 2018
“A compliance-driven annual report dressed as a strategy story — useful as a counter-example of how regulator-mandated structure crushes Storymakers narrative, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA opening — first five pages contain zero stakes-setting; the strategic narrative does not begin until ~p.21 ('How we create value')
35
opening
Sportech 2021 Paris, February 2022
“A competent analytical scan of French sportech with strong metric-laden titles and good callouts, but no thesis, no resolution, and overlapping pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: pages 1-4 are cover/agenda/divider/context — the deck never states what question it answers or why the reader should care
35
opening
Simple & Digital Customer Experience Model
“A conceptual framework walkthrough on NPS/CX with strong individual action titles in the analytical middle but no narrative arc, no opening thesis, and no closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (pp.5, 9, 13), not for deck structure.”
↓ Opening five slides contain zero thesis statement - two covers plus three framework intros
35
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS INDEX 2023
“A well-templated annual reference report from a research firm - useful as a navigable data catalogue but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and missing SCQA arc.”
↓ Zero action titles in 35 slides - every per-profession page (pp.15-32) is templated as 'Trust in X by country', burying the finding
35
opening
API Trends
“A short trend-briefing deck with decent data points but no narrative spine — useful as a counter-example showing how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act flatten a story into a list.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1-3 establish context but never name a Complication or Question, so the audience has no reason to lean in
35
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL ADVISOR Global Perceptions of Healthcare
“A competently executed survey-results report that mistakes a question-by-question data walk for a narrative — useful as a counter-example of how repeating the survey question as the slide title kills any Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: zero Complication or Resolution slides — the deck is 9 consecutive analyze_data pages with no synthesis
35
opening
IPSOS GLOBAL HEALTH SERVICE MONITOR 2023
“A competently structured survey-monitor report — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it labels topics instead of arguing a thesis and ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — deck ends on a methodology page (p.44) and a brand slide (p.45)
35
opening
Trends & AI in the Contact Center
“A competent survey-plus-capabilities deck with strong data callouts but a weak story spine — use its quantified pull-quotes as a teaching example, not its structure or titles.”
↓ Six near-identical section dividers (pp.2,4,6,8,10,12) eat ~20% of the deck without differentiating pillars — dividers should be MECE, not refrains