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
89 matching · page 1 / 4
82
title quality
2022 consumer community banking investor day
“A disciplined, well-anchored investor-day portfolio review with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft and section navigation, but not for end-to-end SCQA narrative because it lacks a Complication and a synthesis close.”
↓ No Complication act: 106 pages without a single slide framing a real threat, gap, or 'what we got wrong' — the macro/credit slide at p.54 ('rapidly changing macro environment') is the closest, but it is immediately neutralised rather than developed into tension.
80
title quality
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
78
title quality
AI at Work: What People Are Saying
“A well-executed survey-findings deck with mostly strong action titles and a correctly placed recommendation slide, but it reads as an ordered sequence of findings rather than a Storymakers-style argument - useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a structural one.”
↓ No section dividers; 8 consecutive analyze_data slides (pp.4-11) flow without pillar signposting
78
title quality
Path to digital marketing maturity
“A tight, well-argued BCG report with strong action titles and a coherent S-C-A-R arc, but it buries its shock stat and closes on a generic 'Closing remarks' - use slides 5, 8, and 9 as teaching examples of insight titles, not the opener or closer.”
↓ Thesis buried on p.5 rather than stated in the first 2-3 slides - opener under-indexes on stakes
78
title quality
Steering Clear of the IT Danger Zones
“A competent short-form Executive Insights brief with strong action titles and a clean recommendation, but the bullish opening undercuts the 'danger zones' thesis — useful as an example of tight title craft, less so as a model of SCQA tension-setting.”
↓ Opening slides (p.2-4) lead with optimism and bury the 'danger' thesis the cover promises until p.5-6
78
title quality
What is and how to navigate the RAS opportunity in LatAm?
“A competent thought-leadership primer with strong market-sizing titles but a missing recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles and macro-to-micro flow, not for SCQA resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.13 names barriers and p.14 says OEMs 'need to consider specific market dynamics' without revealing what they are or what to do
78
title quality
Megatrend 2 Health & Care
“A well-titled, evidence-rich trend compendium with a clean SCQA setup and a real recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantitative callouts, but its 40-slide undivided analytical middle makes it a weak structural exemplar of MECE pillar architecture.”
↓ 40+ consecutive analyze_data / industry_trends slides (pp.12-54) with no breather, summary, or pillar divider — reads as a topic dump rather than a story
78
title quality
Trend Compendium 2050 Full Version
“A high-quality thought-leadership compendium with strong quantified titles but no SCQA spine — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft, not of executive narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1-5 establish topic and scope but never state a thesis or stakes the executive must care about
76
title quality
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 7th Edition
“A well-structured BCG/Altagamma research-insights deck with above-average action titles and a clean three-pillar body, but it buries its recommendation in a single closing slide — use it as a teaching example for pillar architecture and quantified titles, not for answer-first storytelling.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the deck takes until p.31 to surface recommendations, and even then the title ('several priority investments') is a hedge rather than a claim
76
title quality
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“Evidence-rich trend primer with strong stat-titles in the middle but no resolution act — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends on a tools inventory (p.19) instead of a call to action
74
title quality
Education: 2022 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2023
“Solid analytical mid-section with disciplined action titles, but it is structured as a market-update report rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for data-slide titling, not for arc design or closes.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the deck buries its forward-looking thesis behind 12 slides of 2022 retrospection
74
title quality
Reinventing Construction Higher Productivity
“A solid MGI extract with strong quantified opening and clean action-title style, but repeated CONTENTS dividers and a hedged close make it a better teaching example for title-writing than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Three identical 'CONTENTS' slides (p.2, p.7, p.11) substitute for proper pillared dividers and break narrative momentum
74
title quality
Transportation Warehousing Sector
“A disciplined McKinsey diagnostic with strong MECE numbering and metric-laden action titles, but the recommendation is under-staged at p.22 and the deck loses its arc in the back third — use the p.8-20 problem-and-evidence sequence as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is an appendix dump: p.39-40 'Other:' case studies sit outside the 1-5 challenge framework and replace what should be a 'so what / next steps' slide.
74
title quality
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
74
title quality
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
74
title quality
AFF 2023 HKTDC and PwC’s Joint Pulse Survey
“A competently structured survey-readout deck with strong data-bearing action titles but a weak opening and label-style dividers — useful as an example of slide-level action titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening hook or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening is wasted: cover → generic 'Introduction' (p.2) → topic divider (p.3); the thesis is never stated up front
74
title quality
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
74
title quality
OP 2020 03 17 morgan stanley european financials conference 2020 santander executive chairmans presentation only availab
“A solid investor-conference deck with strong quantified titles and a clear track-record-to-forward-plan structure, but it leaves the COVID tension unresolved and closes weakly — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles in financial sections, not for full narrative arc.”
↓ COVID-19 context (p.3) is introduced then dropped — never reconciled with the mid-term EPS goal on p.23, leaving the central tension unresolved
74
title quality
2020 ccb investor day
“A disciplined investor-day performance review with strong action-title and metric hygiene but no narrative tension and a non-existent close — useful as a teaching example of quantified action titles and MECE business-unit structure, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never acknowledges secular headwinds, fintech threats, or rate environment as tension to resolve — it reads as monologue, not argument
72
title quality
Future Energy Landscape Netherlands
“A data-rich McKinsey market-outlook deck with strong quantified titles in the Netherlands section but a missing thesis up front, duplicate section dividers, and a non-committal close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and cost-curve evidence stacking, not for full SCQA structure.”
↓ Two section dividers (p.23 and p.28) carry identical text and neither names the trend it introduces — pillars are invisible to the reader
72
title quality
Quantum Technology Monitor 2021
“A solid, data-dense market monitor with disciplined action titles and clean MECE pillars, but it is a reference document not a story — use its individual analytical slides as title-writing exemplars, but not its overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening and no recommendation close — p.2 asks 'What is this document for?' and the deck ends on methodology (pp.41-44) with no 'so what / now what' slide
72
title quality
US Credit Card Issuer Performance 1Q 2023
“A competent McKinsey quarterly data brief with a strong answer-first opening and well-titled analytical charts, but it diagnoses without prescribing and trails off into valuation tables — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action titles and exec-summary craft, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on P/B ratio tables (p.35-37) with zero recommendation, next steps, or implication for issuers
72
title quality
Digital CFO Results of the Oliver Wyman Study
“A competently chaptered survey readout with above-average action titles, but it presents findings rather than telling a story — useful as a teaching example for declarative metric-led titles, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening: it takes until p.8 to surface a real finding; pp.1–7 are all setup
72
title quality
Crisis Preparedness 2019
“A thesis-driven survey deck with above-average action titles and a clean bookend, but the four sections are topical rather than MECE and the 'do these 5 things' recommendation is referenced rather than delivered — useful as a teaching example for hooks and headline writing, not for resolution structure.”
↓ p10 and p20 use 'PwC Global Crisis Survey 2019' as the slide title — brand chrome where the insight should be (74% sought outside help; preparedness as competitive advantage)