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
635 matching · page 10 / 27
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
European Banking Summit 2018
“A well-titled benchmarking spine that diagnoses Europe's capital-markets gap clearly but stops before answering 'so what' — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of declarative chart titles, not of full SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends on a precedent tease (p.9) and a contact slide (p.10) instead of a recommendation
72
title quality
Global Gas Outlook 2050
“Solid analytical brief with strong quantified mid-deck titles, but it is a findings dump rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of action-title writing on data slides, not as a model for full story arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.6 then dumps into model methodology and a credits slide
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
Quantum Technology Monitor 2022
“A well-titled, data-rich industry monitor with strong slide-level discipline but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-titling and callout craft, not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — p.2 'What does this document provide?' is a meta-description, not a stake
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
ovid-19 Special Primer (2020)
“A well-evidenced topical primer with strong declarative titles but no Storymakers narrative arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and chart-level rigor, not for deck-level story design.”
↓ No thesis slide and no synthesis slide — p.2 openly frames this as a 'round-up,' so 7 sections sit side-by-side with no unifying argument
72
title quality
Vitamins & Dietary Supplements Market trends – Overview
“A competent PwC market-overview deck with strong declarative titles on data slides, but it is a report not a story — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, 'so what,' or call-to-action slide — the deck stops at the last regional forecast (p.22) and jumps straight to Contacts (p.23)
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)
72
title quality
CEO Panel Survey Emerge Stronger
“A competent survey-readout deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation slide, but the placeholder titles and thin close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p.3/p.4/p.7 as title-writing teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Four slides (p.5, 6, 10, 12) carry the placeholder title 'CEO Panel Survey | n' — wasted real estate where an action title should live
72
title quality
GEM Outlook 2021-2025 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC market-outlook research deck with disciplined action titles but no recommendation arc - useful as a Storymakers exemplar for slide-level title craft and benchmark framing, not for opening hook, Act-3 payoff, or closing call-to-action.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide: deck ends p.31 -> appendix -> 'Thank you.' (p.34) with zero implications for an HK operator or advertiser
72
title quality
Internet Advertising Revenue Report
“A competently-titled industry data report whose individual slide titles are above-average Storymakers craft, but the deck as a whole is a category-by-category data tour with no SCQA arc and no recommendation -- use slides 5-11 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: there is a Situation (growth) and Complication (COVID) but no Question or Resolution -- the deck never tells the audience what to do with the findings
72
title quality
e-mobility in India
“A competent PwC point-of-view deck with quantified action titles and a coherent analytical build, but it opens slowly and resolves into a generic takeaways page — use its title-writing and callout craft as a teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — the PoV ('holistic ecosystem approach') is buried on p.9 instead of pages 1–3
72
title quality
Automotive metal components for car bodies and chassis
“Competent Roland Berger market-study deck with clean MECE pillars and disciplined action titles in the analytical body - useful as a teaching example of trend-driven sizing, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it labels its executive summary, buries its punchline, and closes with firm marketing instead of a recommendation.”
↓ The most important number in the deck (EUR 15 bn hot-stamping by 2025) is buried in p.34's callout under a label title 'Implications and key takeaways' - should be the title
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
Roland Berger views on H2 market development
“A competent Roland Berger market-sizing study with strong action titles and clean MECE structure, but it is a reference document not a Storymakers exemplar — use the title-writing on p.11–18 as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No executive summary or BLUF — the EUR 10bn headline is buried on p.7 and never restated as a thesis
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
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
72
title quality
Polish Digital Index
“A competently structured benchmark study with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it skips the upfront thesis and ends in a credentials pitch — use pp.12-18 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: the 'A. Synthesis' divider (p.3) is followed by a study-description (p.4) rather than a one-sentence answer to 'so what'
72
title quality
Global Pricing Study 2011
“A short research-summary teaser with strong headline-title discipline on its analytical slides but no recommendation and a self-promotional close — useful as an exemplar of insight titles, not of full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.9 with a firm-credentials slide ('No. 1 in marketing and sales in Germany')
72
title quality
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“A solid analytical macroeconomic outlook with strong action titles in the diagnosis section, but it reads as a research briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative - useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for arc design or closing.”
↓ No BLUF or thesis slide in the opening - reader must infer the deck's question from the dashboard on p.3
72
title quality
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“Textbook BCG analytical-build deck — MECE pillars, disciplined benchmarking and a hammered $70M number — but it buries the answer for 26 slides and fizzles into a victory-lap close, so use the chapter structure and exec-summary cadence as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried thesis: 26 slides before the $70M number lands — opening sells the mandate, not the answer
72
title quality
IPSOS SEA AHEAD SHIFTS & SENTIMENTS
“A solid sentiment-research dossier with several Storymakers-grade action titles in its first pillar, but it ends on a broken promise (empty NetZero roadmap → Q&A → tagline) and never synthesizes its three pillars into a recommendation — use pp.6-18 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No closing recommendation — p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' divider is followed only by Q&A (p.34) and a brand tagline (p.35); the roadmap itself is missing
72
title quality
2023 HALF-YEAR RESULTS
“A competent half-year earnings deck with disciplined three-pillar structure and several genuinely insight-bearing action titles, but it lacks an upfront thesis and a memorable close — useful as a teaching example for action-title diagnosis (p.8–10), not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No upfront executive summary or thesis slide — the reader must reach p.3 to learn the headline and never gets a single-page synthesis