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
726 matching · page 6 / 31
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
IAB Podcast Ad Revenue
“A credible industry data study with a strong SCQA opening and two exemplary action titles, but it degrades into topic-labeled data tables and ends in administrative back matter - useful as a teaching example for the p.4-7 setup, not as a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No synthesis or implications slide between p.10 (last data) and p.11 (Contacts) - the 'so what' for advertisers, publishers, or platforms is never stated
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
Bike Sharing 4.0
“A competent thought-leadership deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation, but the missing six-factor scaffolding and absent section dividers keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action-title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ The 'six factors' promised on p.3 are never explicitly enumerated or used as section dividers, so the analytical core (p.19-26) loses MECE clarity
72
opening
Sustainability Study 2024
“A competently structured short-form thought-leadership brochure with a clear two-act spine and strong data callouts, but it under-delivers on its own 'four actions' promise and closes with a capabilities pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven storytelling, not for action-title discipline or closing craft.”
↓ The 'four key actions' promised on p.12 do not appear as four parallel slides — only p.13 and p.14 are visible, so the MECE promise is broken
72
opening
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal
72
opening
Insurance Trends and Growth Opportunities for Poland (2015)
“Solid analytical setup and several insight-bearing titles, but the deck is a trend tour that never resolves into a recommendation - useful as a teaching example for S->C framing on p.3-4, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution: 'Topics for the debate' (p.24) abdicates the recommendation a consulting deck owes its audience
72
opening
The economic contribution of Western Australia’s oil and gas industry
“A competent advocacy mini-report with disciplined action titles and a strong benefit-translation closer (p.7), but it lacks a recommendation and any complication beat — useful as an example of tight quantified storytelling, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on community-benefit translation then jumps to appendix at p.8
72
opening
Understanding the path to digital marketing maturity
“Solid mid-tier exemplar of a research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a complete arc, but buries its sharpest insight on p.7 — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, less so for opening-hook craft.”
↓ Lead is buried: the punchy '2% are mature' insight sits on p.7 instead of p.2 or p.3 where it would set the tension
72
opening
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with a strong hook and insight-bearing key-message slides, but it stops at analysis and never answers the 'so what' — useful as a teaching example for action titles and rhetorical setup, not for closing a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends p.27-30 in methodology, sources, and an About Ipsos boilerplate
72
opening
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry-research report with answer-first openings and quantified action titles on the analytics, but the recommendations and close are weak — use slides 7, 8, and 12 as Storymakers exemplars of declarative titling, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.14, p.15) carry the section-divider label as their action title, hiding the actual insight
72
opening
Navigating uncertain skies Commercial Aerospace Insight Report
“A solid industry-outlook report with quantified evidence and parallel recommendations, but the recommend-before-diagnose sequencing and absent closing CTA make it a better teaching example for action-title writing than for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendations (p.13–15) precede the deeper diagnostic of costs, production, and risk (p.18–22), inverting the analyze→recommend order
72
opening
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding
72
opening
Perspective on Tower & Fiber
“A competent McKinsey 'perspective' brief with strong stakes-setting and mostly declarative titles, but it ends on a menu instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of opening discipline, not as a Storymakers exemplar of resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7 ends on "several strategic plays available," which is a menu, not a verdict.
72
opening
OUR 5 URGENT ACTS
“A well-structured two-act advocacy deck with a strong diagnosis and a quotable close — use the SCQA opening (p.3-4) and the catalyst close (p.23-24) as exemplars, but flag the prescription section as a teaching case for why action lists need pillared sub-dividers and answer-first framing.”
↓ The 5 acts (p.14) are listed but never explicitly mapped back to the 43 GT gap or the p.9 sector-lag matrix, so the recommendation feels asserted rather than derived
72
opening
Blurred lines: How FinTech is shaping Financial Services
“A competent, stake-led PwC industry report with a clean numbered spine and several memorable action titles, but the recommendation collapses into a single 'Conclusion' slide after a heavy analytical middle — useful as a teaching example for stake-setting and 'So what?' synthesis, not for landing the ask.”
↓ Resolution act is just two slides (p.29 recommendation + p.30 'Conclusion') after ~22 pages of analysis — the recommendation is buried, not headlined.
72
opening
Navigating uncertainty: PwC’s annual global Working Capital Study
“A competently structured PwC thought-leadership report with strong quantified stakes and clean section architecture, but topic-label titles and a soft service-pitch close keep it firmly in the 'analytical report' lane rather than the Storymakers exemplar tier.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic nouns or 'Figure X:' captions — the deck reads like a report TOC, not a story
72
opening
IT SERVICES The Rates of Success, Goals, and Future Priorities of Digital Transformations, by Sector
“A competent BCG benchmarking note with strong answer-first opening and insight-bearing analytical titles, but it ends without a recommendation and lets its core priority section collapse into topic labels — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the first half, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps act — deck ends on an ESG data slide (p.16) followed only by an author contact page (p.17)
72
opening
Facts, scenarios, and actions for leaders Publication #3 with a focus on Emerging Stronger from the Crisis
“A competent crisis-era BCG update with a clear framework spine and explicit recommendations, but the duplicated section dividers and topic-label transitions make it a decent analytical-build example rather than an exemplary Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Duplicate section divider titles on p.15 and p.30 ('COVID-19 Context and Development') collapse the MECE structure
72
opening
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
“A meticulous Kearney FactBook with strong action titles and MECE pillars but no narrative resolution - use slides 4, 14, 17 and 50 as exemplars of declarative titling, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers archetype.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide - the deck ends on patent counts (p.147-148) and a list of active companies (p.149) rather than 'what should the reader do'
72
opening
US consumers send mixed signals in an uncertain economy
“Tight, well-titled McKinsey insight brief with a real recommendation at the end — use the action titles and SCQA closure as a teaching example, but flag the missing pillar structure and the unflagged trade-down/splurge paradox as the gaps.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — pp.3-9 read as a topic dump rather than grouped pillars (sentiment / spending / channel)
72
opening
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title
72
opening
ALTAGAMMA 2018 WORLDWIDE LUXURY MARKET MONITOR
“A data-rich industry monitor with disciplined numeric action titles and an early-stated thesis, but it buries the 'so what' under an analytical sprawl and fades into a vague purpose exhortation — use pp. 2, 11, 18 and 26 as teaching examples of insight titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Resolution collapses into one vague slide (p. 30 'Be driven by purpose...') with no prioritized moves or owner/timeline — weak 'so what' for a 30-page build-up