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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on title quality
- 86 2024 Global Investor Survey BCG · 2024
- 86 What if Germany becomes the sick man of Europe again? RolandBerger · 2023
- 86 ey global economic outlook july 2023 MorganStanley · 2023
- 85 March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge Accenture · 2023
- 85 ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en GoldmanSachs · 2024
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A data-rich thought-leadership update with genuinely strong action titles, but structurally not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p2-p9 as a teaching example for declarative titling, not as a model for deck architecture.” — AlvarezMarsal, 2024
- “Solid BCG executive-perspectives piece with excellent imperative-led action titles and a clean recommendation block, but the 10-slide context run-up, absent MECE dividers, and whimpering close-into-appendix make it a better teaching example for title craft than for overall Storymakers arc.” — BCG, 2022
- “Lead-gen publication deck with unusually strong action titles and a clean analytical middle, but a hollow recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative resolution.” — LEK, 2024
- “A well-titled McKinsey research briefing with a clean setup and a framework promise on p.4, but it is an S-C-A deck with the R amputated — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers arc.” — McKinsey, 2020
- “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.” — RolandBerger, 2017
- “A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.” — RolandBerger, 2018
- “A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.” — misc, 2021
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 11 / 46
74
title quality
US Mail Volumes to 2020
“A classic BCG analytical build-up with excellent numeric action titles in the middle but a procedural opening and topic-labelled recommendation — use p9–p19 and p26–p33 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Procedural opening — p2–p6 are objectives/approach/segmentation with zero stakes; the 15% headline is delayed to p9
74
title quality
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
74
title quality
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
74
title quality
Mastering Marketing Measurement
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles in its benchmark half, but the narrative doubles back on itself and closes on a soft 'getting started' frame rather than a sharp recommendation - use pp.10-15 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Structural redundancy: the six steps are introduced on pp.4-8 and then re-litigated on pp.9-15 without a clear distinction between 'what leaders do' and 'why it works'
74
title quality
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
74
title quality
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
74
title quality
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A solid diagnostic survey deck with strong action-titled middle analysis but a hedged opening and a one-slide recommendation — use p.8-16 as a teaching example of insight titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: p.4-5 'Executive summary' callouts are hedged and don't state the one-line answer; no BLUF in first 3 slides
74
title quality
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
74
title quality
Inclusion and Diversity Survey Make It More Than A Mantra
“Solid analytical survey deck with disciplined action titles in the middle but a thin resolution - useful as a teaching example for cornerstone-framework reuse and section chaptering, not for closing the loop from stakes to recommendation.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.30) with a generic title and no enumerated levers, despite p.29 promising '4 key opportunities for differentiation'.
74
title quality
European Banking Barometer 2015
“A competently written industry barometer with strong per-slide action titles and a tight three-message exec summary, but it buries no recommendation and ends on 'Contacts' — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles and connector-title chaining, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or implications slide — the deck ends on p44 data and then 'Contacts'/'Appendix', with zero call-to-action
74
title quality
Pulse of Fintech H1 2021
“A well-organized analytical reference report with strong stat-led titles in its core, but it is a market-data digest rather than a Storymakers deck — use its action titles and stat-led section dividers as a teaching example, not its overall structure or its non-existent close.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.66 data table then About/Contacts; zero 'so what should investors/operators do' slide
74
title quality
Venture Pulse Q3 2024
“A reference-grade quarterly intelligence report with unusually disciplined action titles and MECE geographic structure, but no SCQA arc and no close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and parallel section design, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — the deck ends at p.91 with regional data and rolls straight into 'About us' (pp.92–94) and disclaimers (pp.95–96)
74
title quality
Asia-Pacific 2022 Hospital Priorities Survey: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent analytical survey readout with disciplined numeric action titles and a strong mid-deck pivot, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers' its title promises — use pp.3-10 as a teaching example of front-loaded findings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the subtitle — deck ends on p.21 data then contact/disclaimer
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
Impact of the US BIOSECURE Act on Biopharmas, Contract Services and Investors
“A competent, quant-anchored survey readout with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it sells its own findings short by ending in a capabilities pitch instead of a recommendation - use slides 7-8 as examples of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a capabilities slide (p.11) and a sales CTA (p.12) instead of a recommendation for biopharmas, CxOs or investors
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
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
74
title quality
Battery materials demand and supply perspective
“A competent McKinsey market-perspective deck with strong quantified action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens without a thesis and closes on 'unknowns remain' plus a generic 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.4–9), not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.11 is titled 'Conclusion' — a topic label, not an action title — and offers no recommendation or next step
74
title quality
Covid 19: Briefing Materials
“A high-quality McKinsey briefing document with strong analytical craftsmanship and action-title discipline, but structurally a report not a story — useful as a teaching example for slide-level writing and quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Recommendation is buried at p.41-42 and limited to 'operating-model speed' — too narrow relative to the humanitarian, economic, and operational problems framed earlier
74
title quality
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
“A rigorous DECC-commissioned diagnostic with answer-first framing and quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the gap' instead of 'here is what to do' — use pages 4, 12, 15, and 28 as Storymakers exemplars of metric-led titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on a conditional frame (p.61 'What you would need to believe...') and dissolves into appendix
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
Investment Industrial Policy Future
“A data-rich McKinsey/MGI analytical brief with disciplined hero metrics but a buried, question-shaped recommendation and a backup-heavy tail — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No upfront answer — the recommendation (p.15) appears 65% into the deck and is phrased as a vague 'need a clear agenda' rather than a specific prescription
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
Emerging GenAI Use Cases Credit
“A competent McKinsey survey readout with strong action titles and a sharp opening tension, but it inverts its own ending and lacks visible MECE structure — use it as an exemplar for action-title writing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Closes on pain-points (pp.16-17) instead of recommendation — the 'what leaders do' slide (p.15) is mis-sequenced