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 61.6
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
737 matching · page 1 / 31
86
title quality
2024 Global Investor Survey
“A disciplined survey deck with exemplary action-title craft but a weak landing — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative architecture or closings.”
↓ No answer-first / executive summary slide — the key recommendations don't surface until p.11 of 16
86
title quality
ey global economic outlook july 2023
“A polished, title-driven analytical brief with exemplary action titles and a clean thesis-first open - use it as a teaching example for title craft, but not for narrative arc, since it dissolves into a contributor bio instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation - the deck ends on a regional slide (p30 Africa) and a contributor bio (p32) instead of a 'what this means for you' slide
85
title quality
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“A well-titled macro chart pack masquerading as a narrative deck — use pages 5, 10, 13 and 15 as teaching examples of declarative action titles, but not the overall structure, which sets up tension then trails off into an indicator appendix with no recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on p.56 (credit-risk analysis) then p.57 About us, with zero recommendations, scenarios, or watch-items for the executive audience the TOC promised
85
title quality
ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en
“A tight, well-titled analytical comparison deck (EA vs US tariff impact) that exemplifies strong declarative action titles but lacks SCQA framing on the bookends — use its action-title discipline as the teaching example, not its overall narrative scaffolding.”
↓ No explicit thesis/executive-summary slide in the opening — the reader must assemble the argument from p.2 onward
84
title quality
A&M Valuation Insights March 2024
“A data-rich thought-leadership update with genuinely strong action titles, but structurally not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p2-p9 as a teaching example for declarative titling, not as a model for deck architecture.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide — the deck never tells the reader what the overall point is before diving into data
84
title quality
Future of Sales Marketing Executive Perspectives
“Solid BCG executive-perspectives piece with excellent imperative-led action titles and a clean recommendation block, but the 10-slide context run-up, absent MECE dividers, and whimpering close-into-appendix make it a better teaching example for title craft than for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ 10 slides of context (p2-11) before the pivot at p12 — too long a setup for a 22-page executive perspective
84
title quality
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
84
title quality
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
84
title quality
New US tax/tariff proposals and their impact on the US automotive industry
“An analytically rigorous, answer-first Roland Berger argument with excellent declarative titles and a clean S→C→A pillar structure, but it stops at impact and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified build-up, not for how to close a deck.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck stops at p32's impact number with no recommendation, mitigation play, or stance on what OEMs/policymakers should do next
84
title quality
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 1 Demographic dynamics
“A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.”
↓ No tension/complication slide — jumps from context (p.5) straight to data (p.6) without naming why the reader should care now
84
title quality
What if the US dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency?
“A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.”
↓ The cover question 'What if the US dollar loses its status...' is never answered in the first 3 slides - answer is withheld to p14, breaking 'lead with the answer'
84
title quality
Project Spiritus Final report Market Study
“Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — closing growth-opportunities slide (p.92) is descriptive, not prescriptive; deck never tells the reader what to do
84
title quality
April Macro Brief: Special edition Tariff distress
“A strong analytical brief with insight-bearing titles and clean MECE spine, but the recommendation is compressed and generic - use the tariff analysis (p.12-19, p.22-25, p.36) as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not the resolution arc.”
↓ Recommendation is compressed into p.38-40 and reads as bolt-on consulting boilerplate ('resiliency', 'scenario planning', 'productivity') rather than tariff-specific moves earned by the preceding 30 slides of analysis
84
title quality
May Macro Brief Consumer spending in flux
“Exemplary title writing wrapped around a pure macro-research dump with no resolution — mine pages 5, 14, 33 and 50 as action-title exemplars, but do NOT use the overall structure as a Storymakers template.”
↓ No resolution act — deck closes with p.61 bond-yields commentary and p.62 team bio, zero recommendations or next steps
84
title quality
January Macro Brief
“A strong analytical brief with exemplary declarative action titles and well-placed recommendations, but it stops short of being a Storymakers exemplar because it never closes the loop — use p.5/p.13/p.24 as title-writing teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends on trend #10 (p.40) then a team bio (p.41) with no 'what to do first' or consolidated action slide
84
title quality
eyp global economic outlook jan 2024
“A well-titled, evidence-rich economic outlook with a strong thematic spine but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for declarative action titles and scenario framing, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No closing act: the deck ends with country analysis (p.36) → 'Agenda' (p.37) → bios (p.38-39) → disclaimer; zero synthesis, recommendation, or implications slide
84
title quality
1Q24 GTM update 3.01.24 Jackson
“A polished JPM market-outlook chartbook with exemplary action-title writing and a clean macro-to-recommendation arc, but missing MECE dividers and a real call-to-action — use it as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure — 18 consecutive 'analyze_data' slides risk reading as a chartbook dump
82
title quality
January Macro Brief Special edition: 2024 outlook and top 10 macro trends
“Solid analytical brief with strong action titles and a disciplined trend-plus-recommendation pattern, but the absence of a closing synthesis and MECE sub-grouping makes it a good Storymakers example for title craft and pairing logic, not for end-to-end narrative architecture.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck stops at trend #10 (p.39) and jumps straight to the 'About Accenture' bio (p.40), so the reader leaves with ten recommendations and no hierarchy
82
title quality
The Evolving State of Digital Transformation
“A well-crafted survey-findings brief with exemplary stat-led action titles, but structurally an analytical walk with no complication and no recommendation — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a narrative model.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — deck ends on p.16 describing COVID priorities, then a disclaimer, leaving the reader without a "now what"
82
title quality
What’s in a (Domain) Name? The $2 Billion Secondary Market for Dot-Com Domains
“A tightly argued market-sizing brief with strong action-title discipline and a clean narrative pivot, but it stops at 'what is true' and never lands 'so what' — use it as a teaching example for headline writing and SCQA hinges, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on a data table (p.16) then 'THANK YOU' (p.18) with no recommendation, implication, or next step
82
title quality
Women-led startups losing across the board: from creation to funding, in all key European markets
“A title-driven BCG barometer with strong action titles and a real CTA, but a muddled middle and vague closing keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - use p.1, p.3-4 and the p.10-16 run as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.17-19 re-opens context and re-frames the problem after analysis, breaking the S->C->A->R flow and feeling like two decks stitched together
82
title quality
Economic Impact of Ford and F-Series
“A polished BCG advocacy/impact report with exemplary action titles and pillar structure but no SCQA tension or closing recommendation — use slides 7–14 as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.27 with another benchmark slide, then disclaimer (p.28) and a Ford|BCG marker (p.29)
82
title quality
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Key Insights Report
“A solid evidence-led impact report with strong action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a results readout rather than a Storymakers story — use its titling and pillar structure as an exemplar, not its (absent) opening tension or closing recommendation.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a demographic stat (p.23) and 'About Accenture' (p.24) with no recommendation or call-to-action
82
title quality
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