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
35 matching · page 1 / 2
84
title quality
us executive macroeconomic briefing february 20240223
“A strong analytical macro briefing with thesis-led opening and genuinely insight-bearing action titles, undermined by a platitude recommendation, an orphan slide near the close, and missing pillar structure — use the title craft and opening as a Storymakers exemplar, but not the resolution.”
↓ Resolution is generic: p.23 'transform uncertainty into opportunity' is a consultancy cliché rather than a recommendation derived from the prior 20 slides of analysis
84
title quality
2019 ccb investor day ba56d0e8
“A textbook investor-day deck with consultant-grade action titles and clean MECE business-line pillars, but reassurance-mode narrative and a generic closing — use the Home Lending section (pp.21-30) as the SCQA exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Closing slide p.48 ('We remain focused on executing against our strategy') is generic — no concrete asks, financial commitments, or 2020 milestones
82
title quality
Altagamma 2019 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A well-structured annual market monitor with strong action-title discipline and a memorable mnemonic pillar framework — useful as a teaching example for action titles and section spines, but not for closing the loop, since it ends on description rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the analytical build peaks at p.44 abstraction then dissolves into back matter (pp.45-49)
82
title quality
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
80
title quality
European Consumer Sentiment Survey: How current events in Europe are shaping consumer behavior
“A textbook McKinsey consumer-research deck with a strong opening and disciplined three-pillar MECE spine, but it stops at analysis — use it as an exemplar for action titles and pillar structure, not for the full Storymakers S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on data slides (p38–p39 splurge intent) and a blank McKinsey logo (p40), with no 'implications for retailers/brands' or call to action
78
title quality
A tough year for European chemicals players has come to an end – We do expect a continuation of the challenges into 2024
“A solid analytical diagnosis deck with disciplined action titles, but it ends as a credentials pitch rather than a recommendation -- useful as a teaching example for title craft and diagnosis flow, not for Storymakers closing discipline.”
↓ No explicit recommendation/next-steps slide -- p.13-16 outline a framework but never land on 'do these 3 things by Q2'
78
title quality
Private company outlook: Productivity
“A competent but inert survey-findings report with above-average action titles and a strong opening stat — use it as a teaching example of declarative titling, not of narrative arc, because it has no Resolution act and ends on boilerplate.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — p.12 is just another finding, then p.13 is boilerplate
78
title quality
What if all vehicles were electric?
“Solid analytical point-of-view with quantified titles but a missing resolution act — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on rate-limiters (p.9) with no recommendation, implication, or answer to the cover question
78
title quality
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
76
title quality
Year-end Macro Brief Into the Fog of Winter
“A polished macro chart pack with above-average action titles and a memorable 'winter' thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for slide-level title-writing, not for Storymakers full-arc structure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation act — deck ends on p.54's credit-crunch warning then jumps to team bio (p.55), leaving the 'so-what for executives' unanswered
76
title quality
Constraints to growth: supply chain risks facing renewables Presentation
“Solid analytical mid-build with a textbook SCQA opening, but the deck stops at diagnosis - use slides 2-3 and 5 as a teaching example for hooks and titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends with 'Thank you' on p.11, breaking the SCQA arc at Answer
74
title quality
Pivoting to a High Quality Growth of Clinical Trials in China PharmaDJ x L.E.K. Clinical Development Report
“A competent, survey-driven thought-leadership report with a clear four-pillar spine and numerate titles, but it builds analytically and then fails to land — use its Act 1 setup (pp.3, 5-12) as a teaching example of thesis-plus-proof, not its resolution.”
↓ Resolution act is effectively one slide (p.48) — no prioritized recommendations, no 'so what for pharma X' translation, and no decision framework.
74
title quality
Trends in the truck & trailer market
“A well-structured analytical market study with strong quantified titles and a clear MECE framework, but it stops at 'here is what we found' rather than 'here is what to do' - useful as a research-deck exemplar, weaker as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No genuine recommendation or 'so what' act - p.49 is the only slide tagged 'recommend' and it offers a generic capability statement rather than client actions
74
title quality
Corporate Headquarters Study
“A disciplined, MECE-structured research study with above-average action titles and a strong opening hook, but it dribbles to a close on methodology and brand pages instead of a recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action titles and section architecture, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Resolution act C is only 2 substantive slides (pp.32-33) and reads as a methodology ad, not a recommendation
74
title quality
Towards the unified secondary market: The evolution of distribution channels and evaluation of Asset Tokenization Benefi
“A competent EY thought-leadership deck with a strong analytical middle and a quantified opening, but it ends as a service pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension-building, not for closing structure.”
↓ Four 'Content' dividers (p.6, p.10, p.12, p.18) labeled identically — wasted opportunity to name MECE pillars
74
title quality
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3
74
title quality
BCG's Guide to Cost and Growth
“A competently argued thought-leadership deck with disciplined numeric action titles and a visible three-act spine, but it buries its recommendation behind a capabilities pitch — use p.3-9 and p.12-16 as a teaching example of statistic-led titling, not the overall close.”
↓ Closing collapses into capability-marketing: p.22 'BCG has deep expertise in cost management' replaces the recommendation slide the arc was building toward
74
title quality
ESG momentum: Seven reported traits that set organizations apart
“A competent McKinsey research-survey readout with strong action titles and clean leader-vs-laggard benchmarking, but it never delivers the 'seven traits' MECE structure its title promises and closes on the authors page instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ The titular 'seven traits' are never explicitly named or numbered — the reader has to count and infer them across p.5-p.11
72
title quality
Shaping Future Indian ME
“A polished industry-outlook report with strong sector-level action titles and a clear two-pillar spine, but the recommendation is a single afterthought slide — use the sector deep-dives (p.20–26) and the headroom build (p.10–11, p.27) as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Recommendation reduced to one slide (p.43) with a topic-label title and no prioritization, owner, or sequencing
72
title quality
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
72
title quality
Technology Mineral Criticality
“A solid analytical McKinsey deck with strong action titles and a clear opening problem-frame, but it loses the storyline halfway through and never delivers a closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for title quality and S-C-A framing, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on scenario analysis (p. 26) then 'Back-up' (p. 27)
72
title quality
Sportech 2021 Paris, February 2022
“A competent analytical scan of French sportech with strong metric-laden titles and good callouts, but no thesis, no resolution, and overlapping pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: pages 1-4 are cover/agenda/divider/context — the deck never states what question it answers or why the reader should care
72
title quality
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14
72
title quality
2023 Ipsos Global Trends Report
“A well-crafted trends report with disciplined action titles and a strong opening hook, but it reads as an encyclopedia of twelve parallel chapters rather than a single argument — useful as a teaching example for chapter-level structure and title craft, not for overall narrative escalation or closing punch.”
↓ Twelve trend chapters of near-identical structure flatten the narrative — there is no escalation or ranking of which trends matter most for the reader