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
22 matching
82
title quality
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
78
title quality
Unlocking the next wave of digital growth: beyond metropolitan Indonesia
“A well-structured Kearney/Alpha JWC market report with disciplined action titles and a MECE four-act spine, but it buries its thesis under five forewords and dissipates its recommendation across the deck — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and segmentation storytelling, less so for opening hook or answer-first close.”
↓ Front matter is bloated — 5 forewords/quote slides (p.2–7) before the executive summary, burying the thesis
74
title quality
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
74
title quality
2020 Effie UK Report in partnership with Ipsos MORI
“A well-structured Effie findings report with strong action titles and a disciplined data+case-study rhythm, but it lacks a stated thesis up front and ends in a contact slide instead of a recommendation — useful as an exemplar for chapter cadence and title craft, not for narrative opening/closing.”
↓ Both 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' slides (p.4 and p.40) appear to be sparse title placeholders with no synthesis — the deck never actually delivers an exec summary
74
title quality
20210628 Lanxess Presentation MS Cannon Ball Run Field Trip
“A solid IR earnings update with above-average action titles and a credible analytical spine, but the unlabeled dividers and absent recommendation make it a useful teaching example for segment-level action-titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles out via events calendar (p.31) and contacts (p.32)
72
title quality
Indonesia Sustainable Transformation
“A competently structured ESG landscape report with strong action titles and a clean three-pillar MECE spine, but it reads as analysis-without-resolution and is best used as a teaching example for pillar architecture and title craft, not for SCQA closure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a case study + quote + disclaimer (p.29-31) with no recommendation or call to action
72
title quality
Barriers to FinTech innovation in the Netherlands
“Competent Roland Berger policy deck with clear three-act scaffolding and mostly declarative titles, but it under-builds the tension and fades into appendix instead of landing a call to action — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing structure.”
↓ No synthesis or call-to-action slide before the appendix — the deck ends mid-thought at p.31 and dumps 10 supporting slides
72
title quality
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action
72
title quality
Ipsos Global Advisor Earth Day 2023 Full Report WEB
“A competent Ipsos research tour with above-average action titles and pillar dividers, but it ends in a methodology-and-thank-you whimper with no recommendation — use the middle title craft as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on p.44 "THANK YOU" and p.45 "ABOUT IPSOS" with zero so-what
72
title quality
The evolving private equity playbook
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a recognizable SCQA spine and strong quantified middle, but the opening buries its hook behind front-matter and the close fragments the recommendation — use the p.7, p.13 and p.16 titles as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Case study on p.4 precedes the problem framing on p.6–7, so the reader sees a 'result' before understanding what problem it solves
72
title quality
KSA Banking Pulse Q3 2024
“A competent quarterly data-pulse with strong insight-bearing action titles and consistent callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc test — no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close — so use it to teach action-title writing, not narrative structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening — p.1-p.5 never state the deck's thesis; the reader waits until p.7 to learn earnings grew 5.3%
70
title quality
Risk in review Managing risk from the front line
“Solid PwC thought-leadership deck with a real S->C->A->R spine and a clear thesis, but undermined by repetitive mid-deck benchmarks and topic-label section headers - useful as a teaching example for thesis-driven evidence stacking, not for crisp MECE pillaring or memorable closes.”
↓ Several adjacent slides repeat the same Front-Liner-vs-others benchmark structure (p.12, p.13, p.16, p.18) without escalating insight
66
title quality
Conquering the next value frontier in private equity
“A competent market-shaping POV with strong data slides and an early thesis, but the closing recommendations are fragmented and title discipline is uneven — useful as a teaching example for action-title-on-data-slide patterns, not as a whole-deck Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slides 4-8 re-establish context after slide 3 already delivered the headline, diluting momentum in the opening act
66
title quality
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer
62
title quality
Now decides next: Getting real about Generative AI
“A competent Deloitte thought-leadership report with a clean two-act skeleton and some strong action titles, but it buries its hook and repeats its section title as slide titles — use pp.9, 10, 22, 25 as examples of good declarative writing, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 4 pages on cover/TOC/foreword before any substantive claim; thesis never stated in first 3 slides
60
title quality
Lazard LCOE+
“A polished annual reference report with strong MECE pillar structure but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for parallel-section design and sensitivity tables, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opens cold: cover → TOC → divider → three 'Executive Summary—...' topic-label slides (pp.1-6) before any insight surfaces
60
title quality
state of workplace study
“A competent research/thought-leadership report with stats-driven callouts and a topical three-pillar spine, but it buries the recommendation — use p8, p9, and p21 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No complication slide — tension is implied by stats but never dramatized, so p8-p29 reads as an analytical dump
58
title quality
Barclays Investor Presentation 2018
“Competent investor-relations deck with a solid pyramid opener and case-study spine, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.15-20 and select titles (p.40, p.34) for teaching declarative titling and evidence stacking, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names a problem, risk, or gap the strategy is solving — weakening the SCQA arc
50
title quality
Aspen Presentation GS Emerging Leaders Conference
“An investor-conference company story with solid quantified proof points but no thesis upfront and no ask at the end — useful as an example of case-study framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar for narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide — reader has to infer the investment argument from scattered data points across p.3-4
45
title quality
Accelerated Access Review UK Mapping
“A structurally MECE but narratively incomplete analytical mapping — useful as an exemplar of parallel-pillar taxonomy and case-study titling, but a cautionary tale on closing: the deck stops before the recommendation and should not be taught as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on Methodology/Glossary/Limitations (pp.103-108) with zero recommendations, owners, or sequencing of the 12 opportunities teased on p.10
42
title quality
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
34
title quality
PwC’s MSME Survey 2020 Building to Last
“A topic-organised survey report dressed as a deck — strong on evidence, case studies and quoted statistics, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it never leads with an answer, lets question-style titles do the work that insight titles should, and ends on a technology tangent instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first opening — the thesis is buried until the 'Headline survey findings' on pp.11-12, and even those are not declarative single-sentence claims