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
137 matching · page 1 / 6
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
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
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
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
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
Holiday Season Insights How did retail apparel promotions perform in 2019?
“A competent analyst-first POV piece with strong action titles and quantitative spine, but the recommendation is underbuilt and the closing slot is handed to a capabilities pitch - use pp.4-11 as a teaching example for answer-first thesis and declarative titles, not as a model for the resolution act.”
↓ Three near-duplicate context/cover slides (pp.1, 2, 3, plus p.14) inflate front/back matter and delay the payoff
82
title quality
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
81
title quality
Grocery profitability outlook –Europe
“Disciplined analytical build with exemplary action titles and quantified levers, but it tapers into case studies without a closing recommendation — use the diagnosis and impact-sizing sections (p.5-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the resolution arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or CTA slide — deck terminates on a Walmart case study (p.40) before the appendix.
80
title quality
Vietnam Logistics
“A competent A&M pitch-style market-opportunity report with strong action titles and a clean answer-first opening, but it buries the tension and has no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles and Cainiao-style precedent use, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.16 analysis, then jumps straight to Contacts and team bios
80
title quality
Beyond good intentions
“A solid short-form point-of-view deck with clean SCQA bones and a strong three-pillar resolution — use p.10-13 as a teaching example of how to mirror a recommendation across slides, but nudge the opening and add dividers to make it truly exemplary.”
↓ p.3 'About this Report' is a generic front-matter label that stalls the opening instead of advancing the thesis
80
title quality
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
78
title quality
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality industry monitor with strong action-titled charts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches slide craft (declarative titles, parallel sub-structures) rather than narrative architecture — use individual slides as examples, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next moves' slide — the deck ends at p.50 on a data point, then methodology
78
title quality
Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale
“Textbook McKinsey answer-first diagnostic with a strong front-loaded thesis and clean MECE sector build — use the opening (pp.6-10) and the per-sector template (pp.38-48) as Storymakers exemplars, but do not copy its closing, which buries the recommendation under 70 pages of appendix.”
↓ Closing collapses into appendix: pp.164-234 are methodology, statistical tests and the kommissorium, with no recommendation/roadmap slide before the appendix split
78
title quality
RAIL FREIGHT IN CENTRAL ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST
“A well-disciplined two-region analytical study with strong action titles and parallel MECE structure, but it reads as two stacked reports rather than one Storymakers arc — use the title craft and country-deep-dive template as a teaching example, not the overall narrative shape.”
↓ Executive Summary slides p.11–13 are titled '(1/3), (2/3), (3/3)' — wasted real estate where the thesis should live
78
title quality
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“Analytically rigorous macro chart-pack with strong action titles in the first third, but it abandons the story arc halfway and ends without a recommendation — use pp.5-21 as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the deck structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on p.61 yield curves and p.62 About Accenture, so the reader never gets an ask
78
title quality
IAB State of Data 2023
“A solid analytical industry report with strong title discipline on the diagnostic middle, but the recommendation is buried mid-deck and the close trails off into sponsor matter — use pp. 11-25 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation arc is buried — the recap fires on p. 26 but the deck continues for 21 more slides of frameworks, appendix, and sponsor content
78
title quality
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“A short McKinsey POV primer with strong quantified action titles and a credible SCQA setup, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and impact sizing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution/recommendation slide — deck ends at slide 9 on an executive-sentiment data point with no 'so what'
78
title quality
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution
76
title quality
The Lithium-Ion (EV) battery market and supply chain
“Strong analytical mid-section with quantified, declarative titles, but bookended by a thesis-less opening and a triple-takeaway close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — first 5 pages establish context but never preview the answer or stakes
76
title quality
Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020
“Textbook BCG analytical deck with clean MECE pillars and quantified action titles in the body, but classic objectives-first sequencing buries the lede — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and pillar discipline, not for opening or answer-first storytelling.”
↓ Buries the lede — 8 pages of objectives/approach/segmentation before the headline -15% finding on p.9; an answer-first opening would invert this
76
title quality
2021 Consumer Behavior Value Shake up
“A competent trend-report deck with strong declarative titles and a clear $2T thesis, but the ending repeats itself across three slides and the middle is a topic-tour rather than a MECE build — use the title craft and quote-slide rhythm as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Pages 18, 19, and 20 all orbit the same 'innovations powered by data' recommendation — p.18 and p.19 have essentially identical titles and callouts, which wastes the closing real estate
76
title quality
Deloitte Gen Z and Millennial Survey 2022
“A competently-titled, MECE-organized thought-leadership survey deck that teaches strong action-title and callout discipline but diffuses its opening across four slides and buries its recommendations under a generic triple-header — use the per-slide titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Four-slide executive summary (p.2-5) dilutes the opening — the thesis should land on one slide
76
title quality
2020 cib investor day
“A textbook investor-day deck with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts but no SCQA tension and no synthesis close — use slides 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 34, 35 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p18, p19, p20) reuse essentially the same action title about «continuity and completeness in coverage» — a tell that the argument was not decomposed MECE before titling