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 12 / 46
74
title quality
The Heartbeat of Progress
“A competent OliverWyman thought-leadership study with strong action titles and a BLUF opening, but it ends in a soft conclusion plus decorative filler — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 17 pages flow as a topic list, hurting orientation
74
title quality
the true value of green: willingness to pay for sustainability in consumer & home electronics
“Solid analytical mid-section with declarative titles and a clear conjoint backbone, but the deck buries its recommendation in a single 'Key takeaways' label - use slides 5-10 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is a single label slide ('Key takeaways', p.13) with no recommendation, action, or next step for the audience
74
title quality
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)
74
title quality
Blurred lines FinTech 2016
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and disciplined 'so what?' moments, but it leans analytical-heavy and fizzles at the close — useful as a teaching example for answer-first openings and rhetorical titles, less so as a model of resolution.”
↓ Closing is anticlimactic — p.29 'Conclusion' is a generic label and there is no explicit recommendation or action slide before the appendix dump
74
title quality
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
74
title quality
2019 Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear protagonist (Dynamics) and largely declarative titles, but the soft complication, over-reliance on quote slides, and uneven pillar signposting make it a useful exemplar for action-title craft — not for full Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Heavy reliance on quote_slides (p.3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20 — seven of 22 pages) substitutes voice-of-expert for analytical synthesis
74
title quality
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
74
title quality
Rail supply digitization
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with disciplined action titles and a visible four-act spine, but it diagnoses without prescribing and ends as a Pathfinder sales pitch — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for closing a story.”
↓ Closing collapses into a product pitch: p.33-36 sell the Digital Pathfinder rather than synthesize survey takeaways into a recommendation
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
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
74
title quality
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
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
Global Sustainability Study 2023 Webinar
“A solid webinar-format thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean problem-evidence flow, but the recommendation framework is buried at the end and the section dividers repeat a slogan instead of naming MECE pillars — use the analytical middle (p.14-20) as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slides 2 and 3 are near-duplicate definitional slides, wasting two of the first three pages on terminology before any stakes are set
74
title quality
South Africa Economic Outlook Productivity Potential Index (PPI): A new way of measuring countries’ productive competiti
“A tight diagnostic note with strong action titles and an implicit MECE pillar structure, but it stops at diagnosis — useful as an example of pillar-based analysis, not as a full S→C→A→R Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.9 diagnosis then jumps to p.10 contacts, with no recommendation or next-steps slide
74
title quality
6th ICO STO Report Strategic
“A competent short market-study deck with above-average action titles, but it ends on a credentials pitch instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of strong data-slide titling, weak as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ Closes on a service pitch (p.11) + 'Thank you!' (p.12) with no synthesized recommendation or 'so what' for the reader
74
title quality
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal
74
title quality
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
74
title quality
The economic contribution of Western Australia’s oil and gas industry
“A competent advocacy mini-report with disciplined action titles and a strong benefit-translation closer (p.7), but it lacks a recommendation and any complication beat — useful as an example of tight quantified storytelling, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on community-benefit translation then jumps to appendix at p.8
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
Saudi Arabia Banking Pulse
“A competent quarterly metric tour with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it lacks a thesis-led opening and any closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing discipline, not for SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No recommendation, outlook, or 'what to watch' slide — the deck dies into a glossary at p.24-28
74
title quality
PwC's 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey
“A well-signposted research-survey deck with strong action titles in its analytical core but a missing resolution act — use pillars 1–3 as a teaching example for MECE structure and action-title discipline, not the closing.”
↓ ~10 slides reuse the report name '22nd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the slide title (p.9, 11, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 37, 42), abdicating the action-title discipline
74
title quality
China M&A 2024 Review and Outlook
“A well-structured PwC market review with strong slide-level action titles but a weak synthesis and outlook — use slides 5, 9, 10, 17, 20 as exemplars of action-title craft, but not the deck as a whole-arc Storymakers model.”
↓ Synthesis pages 31–33 are titled 'Key messages (1)/(2)/(3)' — pure topic labels on the slides that should carry the strongest insight titles
74
title quality
2025 Nigeria Budget and Economic Outlook
“A diligent, metric-rich PwC market outlook with strong declarative titles and a real recommendation arc, but it buries its thesis behind 10 pages of context and lets seven identically-titled pillar dividers obscure an otherwise MECE structure — use individual analytical pages (p.10, p.18, p.86) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck-level architecture.”
↓ Seven pillar dividers are titled identically ('Key issues for consideration in 2025', p.12/21/31/39/47/58/64), erasing MECE legibility for a skim reader
74
title quality
Overview of the ASEAN-6 Automotive Market
“A disciplined market-atlas briefing with strong action titles and a front-loaded thesis, but it dissolves into a country tour and never closes the loop - useful as an exemplar of parallel country-profile structure and metric-led titles, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five case-study slides (p17, 21, 25, 29, 33) share a verbatim generic title - pure topic dump with no per-country insight