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 11 / 27
72
title quality
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action
72
title quality
PUBLIC TRUST IN AI: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND REGULATION
“A competent five-act research report with a clear spine and several genuinely declarative slide titles, but the soft opening, noun-phrase dividers, and principle-level closing keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use the risks/benefits section (p.11–14) as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns four slides on cover/intro/TOC/takeaways before any evidence (p.1–4); a Storymakers opener would collapse these and lead with the answer
72
title quality
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
72
title quality
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
72
title quality
Decarbonization in ports and shipping
“A competent thought-leadership / business-development deck with strong action titles and a clean macro-to-micro context build, but it stops short of a recommendation and pivots to firm credentials — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and SCQA setup, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Self-promotion crowds the narrative: p.2, p.3 and p.11 are credentials/RB-targets slides in a 12-page deck — 25% of the real estate is about the firm, not the client problem
72
title quality
When will the knot finally unravel?
“A competent short market-update deck with disciplined quantified titles and a consistent thesis line, but it stops at outlook and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for full S-C-Q-A arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7's outlook is the de facto close, followed by filler (p.8) and front-matter (p.9)
72
title quality
Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional
“A well-opened, well-quantified problem statement that abdicates its own conclusion — use slides 1-7 as a teaching example for stakes-setting and action titles, but not as a complete Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.10 asks 'What will it take to improve productivity?' but the deck ends without answering
72
title quality
SOUTHEAST ASIA’S GREEN ECONOMY 2024
“A thorough, well-pillared climate-intelligence report with a real S-C-A-R spine and strong analytical titling in the middle — use it as a teaching example for MECE section structure and stakeholder-segmented CTAs, but not for openings or closings, since the thesis arrives on p.16 and the calls to action are buried before a 30-page country appendix.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: first 5 slides are pure front-matter and pp.6-9 are four sequential forewords before any analytical content
72
title quality
Creating the best SME Debt finance ecosystem
“A structurally exemplary three-act consulting deck with strong diagnostic action titles, but it hedges its recommendations and wastes its executive summary headers — use Section 1 as the teaching example for action-titled diagnosis, not the closing as a recommendation template.”
↓ Executive summary slides 4-8 use pagination titles ('EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1/5…5/5') instead of carrying the five claims they contain — the most expensive real estate in the deck wasted
72
title quality
2020 Effie UK Report • In partnership withIpsos
“A competently structured industry-report deck with strong action titles and good evidence pairing, but it never leads with the answer and ends in a contact card — use its title craft and case-pairing rhythm as the teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis upfront: p.4 and p.40 are both labelled 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' but neither callout reveals a synthesised answer — the deck never tells you in one sentence what the 2020 effectiveness story is.
72
title quality
Education: 2023 M&A Deal Roundup and Trends to Watch Out for in 2024
“A competent thought-leadership / BD deck with metric-led titles in the retrospective half but no thesis upfront and no recommendation at the close — use the 2023 retrospective (pp. 6-15) and the AI mini-arc (pp. 39-42) as title-craft teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No thesis slide upfront — p.5 names 'four key themes' but the title doesn't enumerate them, forcing readers to discover them across 10+ slides
72
title quality
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025: Hong Kong summary
“Solid analytical mid-deck with good action titles in the segment dives, but a weak thesis-free opening and a tangential Gen AI tail leave it as a useful teaching example for MECE segment build-up — not for narrative arc or close.”
↓ No SCQA hook in opening — p.4-5 establish scope without naming the central question or answer
72
title quality
[Presentation title] 6th ICO / STO Report
“A competent market-update report with strong individual action titles but a weak narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for title-writing and callouts, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'Executive Summary' is a label, not an answer — a true exec summary should state the thesis in the title
72
title quality
What the Evolution of Travel Means for Business
“A competent BCG executive-perspectives brief with solid action titles in the body but a broken arc — recommendations land mid-deck and the ending dissolves into appendix and disclaimer, making it a good teaching example for slide-level titling but a weak one for deck-level Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on a TSR chart, an appendix pointer, a disclaimer, and a blank 'Closing Slide' (p.25-28)
72
title quality
2021 Five Trends Post Pandemic Leadership
“Structurally disciplined five-pillar trend brief with strong MECE dividers and evidence-heavy action titles, but it is an analytical dump without a resolution — use the pillar architecture and title style as teaching examples, not the ending.”
↓ No resolution — the deck ends on p.34 with a supply-chain stat mid-pillar, no synthesis, no recommendation, no 'what leaders should do next'
72
title quality
Hydrogen applications and business models
“An exhaustive, well-titled reference FactBook with consultant-grade analytical rigor but a buried thesis and a missing resolution — use the business-case section (p.128-184) as a teaching example for evidence ladders, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or pyramid lead — the integrating answer ('heavy-duty transport is the most promising near-term H2 business model') sits on p.14-15 of a 192-page deck instead of p.3
72
title quality
European Deep Tech – Opportunities and Discoveries
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with a clean A–E narrative spine and quantified titles, but it buries the thesis up front and fizzles into a generic 'collective effort' close — use sections B and C as Storymakers exemplars, not the bookends.”
↓ Closing slide p.18 is generic ('collective effort from all actors') with no recommendations, owners, or next steps — and contains a typo ('Deel Tech')
72
title quality
Deloitte 2023 CxO Sustainability Report
“A competent research-report-as-deck with strong per-page action titles on the analytical spine but weak framing pages and a generic recommendation close — use pp. 5, 8, 14, 16 as a teaching example of good action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven near-identical «What leaders are saying about …» quote slides (pp. 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19) are topic labels, not insights, and flatten the narrative pace
72
title quality
Fintech
“A competent analytical Deloitte industry report with strong action titles on the diagnostic slides but a missing 'Answer' act — use pages 9-11 as a teaching example of tension-carrying titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the cover tagline 'On the brink of further disruption' is never restated as a crisp SCQA answer
72
title quality
Deloitte Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with strong slide-level action titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven body slides, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the opening 5 — p.5 is labeled a key takeaway but appears before the evidence
72
title quality
Ipsos SEA Ahead Shift + Sentiments 20211209
“A solid analytical research read-out with strong quantified action titles in its first pillar, but it functions as three stitched-together topic briefs rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as an example of action-title writing in the macro section, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis: p.33 'ROADMAP TO NETZERO' is a divider with no follow-through, then jumps straight to Q&A on p.34
72
title quality
2022 06 15 Investor Day
“Solid investor-day deck with strong financial action titles and tightly parallel per-geography templates, but a mixed pillar taxonomy and a thematic (not quantified) close keep it from being an exemplar - use the geography sections (p.51-76) as a teaching example of MECE drill-down structure, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Mixed pillar taxonomy: capability (proprietary platform) + geographies (US/India/China) + verticals (Healthcare/Public Sector) presented as one sequence, not labeled as separate cuts
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
72
title quality
What The Future Intelligence
“A thought-leadership magazine with strong action titles and a crisp thesis, but it diagnoses endlessly and never prescribes — useful as a teaching example of declarative slide titles and data-driven build-up, not as a model for Storymakers arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck has no 'so what / now what' slide; last substantive page (p41 'Future optimism gaps') diagnoses rather than recommends