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
130 matching · page 1 / 6
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
82
title quality
What if the eurozone were to enter a recession? Roland Berger Institute
“A tightly-written analytical brief with exemplary action titles but no explicit MECE dividers and no recommendation slide; use it as a teaching example for sentence-titles, not for full story-arc structure.”
↓ No section dividers — the four-mechanism MECE (investment, layoffs, consumption, government) is invisible without reading every title
82
title quality
Aerospace supply chain: Resilience report 2024
“A disciplined survey-report deck with strong action titles and tight pacing, but the recommendation is under-built and the structure is a flat analytical run rather than a true Storymakers arc — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for closing or pillar design.”
↓ The recommendation is a single slide (p.13) with a generic 'adopt best-practices' message — no specific moves, owners, or sequencing
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
80
title quality
L.E.K.’s 2024 ASC Insights Study Key takeaways for provider organizations
“A tight, well-titled thought-leadership teaser with a clean S->C->A->R arc — use p.4-8 action titles as a teaching example for insight-first headlines, but the methodology-heavy p.2 and soft p.11/p.13 close keep it short of exemplar status.”
↓ P.2 burns the second slide on methodology/sources rather than stakes or thesis
80
title quality
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
80
title quality
Hydrogen: Closing the cost gap
“A solid analytical McKinsey build with strong quantified titles and a clean three-bucket MECE, but it buries its named framework and lets the recommendation drift into the appendix - use pp. 10-13 as a teaching example for analytical staircases, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide p. 19 reverts to a vague topic-style title and lacks a crisp recommendation or next-step CTA
78
title quality
Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021
“A well-structured commissioned value-quantification report with a strong BLUF opening and MECE essential/enriches pillars, but it is an analytical exposition rather than a Storymakers exemplar - it teaches pillar design and quantified action titles, not how to close with a recommendation.”
↓ No Resolution / CTA: deck ends on a gaming case study (p.27) then methodology - missing a 'what this means for NBN Co / policy / retailers' closing slide
78
title quality
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
78
title quality
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
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
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Indonesia
“A competent single-chapter country brief with strong action titles and clean one-message slides, but it is analytical reporting rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative structure or closing.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends on p.7 with a negative funding stat and no recommendation, implication, or 'where to play' call to action
78
title quality
Japan Hospital Insights Survey Findings Summary materials
“A disciplined survey-findings report with strong declarative action titles and clean MECE pillar dividers, but it buries the thesis behind methodology and ends as a sales pitch — borrow its titling and section-divider discipline, not its overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns 6 pages on methodology before a single finding (pp 1–6); the thesis is never stated up front
78
title quality
Destination unknown: The future of long-distance travel
“A competent analytical brief with crisp action titles and a strong opening contradiction, but it stops at 'analysis' and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title contrast structure, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends on p.11 data and an authors page, with the implication that 'providers need digital tools' never expanded into a Resolution act
78
title quality
Understanding public attitudes to early childhood
“A competent research-findings deck with exemplary stat-led action titles but no Recommendation act — use slides 4, 6, 7, 13 as teaching examples for title craft, not the deck as a whole for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next steps' slide — closes on p.17 'Contact', so the analysis dies on the table
78
title quality
Creating Value with GenAI in Asset Management
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and clear pillars, but it teaches opportunity sizing better than it teaches SCQA — use slides 5/6/16 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: the asset-management-specific number doesn't appear until p.6 after generic CEO/industry context
78
title quality
2020 cb investor day
“A polished, on-message investor-day deck with disciplined action titles and a clean thematic spine, but it is a confidence narrative rather than a Storymakers SCQA arc — useful as an exemplar of title discipline and pillar sequencing, not as a model for tension-and-resolution storytelling.”
↓ No real Complication/tension — every slide reassures ('strong', 'well-positioned', 'substantial'), so the narrative lacks the SCQA pivot that would earn the resolution
77
title quality
Next Generation Manufacturing Tech Innovation
“Textbook BCG diagnostic-to-prescription build with strong action titles and a dual-audience CTA, but buries the thesis behind six slides of front matter — use the country-case section (pp.20-28) and the split-audience recommendation block (pp.55-58) as teaching exemplars, not the opening.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 5 slides, and the entire executive summary is compressed into a single slide (p.7) labelled 'At a Glance' — a topic label, not an insight
76
title quality
Open Education Resources ecosystem
“Solid analytical middle with strong declarative titles, but it opens with framework scaffolding instead of a thesis and never closes with a recommendation — use pp. 8-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — p.16 is the only candidate and it defers to 'track metrics consistently', which is a process ask, not an answer
76
title quality
AI Raising Stakes Cybersecurity
“Solid BCG research slideshow with a clean S→C→A→R spine and strong declarative titles, but the recommendation is compressed into one slide — use it as a teaching example for action titles and opening stakes, not for resolution design.”
↓ Resolution is undersized — a single p.20 priorities slide has to carry the entire «what to do» after 10 diagnostic slides
76
title quality
Refueling Innovation Engine Vaccines
“A textbook McKinsey diagnostic deck with a clean SCQA arc and strong action titles, but it stops one slide short of a committed recommendation — use pp.16-25 as a teaching example of narrative pivoting, not the closing.”
↓ Resolution act is tentative — 'Initial thoughts' (p.30) and 'Questions for discussion' (p.32) abdicate the recommendation
76
title quality
eReadiness 2023 Survey
“A well-titled, well-segmented research dump from Strategy& that demonstrates excellent action-title craft in the analytical body but buries its recommendation under 76 pages of evidence - use the consumer chapters as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Answer is buried: 5 recommendations land on p.79-80 after 76 pages of analysis, and both slides share the identical action title - the 'so what' gets ~2.5% of the page budget
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
75
title quality
The State of Fashion 2025
“An encyclopedic annual industry report with strong McKinsey-style action titles and disciplined per-theme SCQA, but it lacks an overarching arc and fizzles into pull-quotes and appendices — use the analytical sections (especially Sportswear pp.99-108 and the Global Fashion Index pp.129-141) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No synthesis slide before the appendix — pp.141-145 dribble into pull-quotes ('Fashion System', 'McKinsey Global Fashion Index') instead of a 10-theme recap or CTA