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 13 / 46
74
title quality
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“A well-structured BCG x Tencent market study with exemplary quantified action titles in its analytical spine, but it loses Storymakers discipline exactly where it matters most - the recommendation titles go topic-label and the deck ends in 'Thank you'; use the middle (p.4-28) as a teaching example of action-title craft, not the closing.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.43-45) are topic labels, not insights - the deck teaches action titles for 40 pages then abandons them at the punchline
74
title quality
The future of demand
“A well-structured thought-leadership deck with a clean SCQA arc and answer-first exec summary — strong Storymakers exemplar for opening/closing discipline, but the overlapping middle dividers make it a flawed template for teaching MECE pillar design.”
↓ Two middle dividers (p.6 and p.8) cover overlapping territory about customer-industry sustainability — breaks MECE
74
title quality
Unlocking alpha in deals
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a clean SCQA arc and MECE three-pillar spine — use the divider structure and analytical action titles as a teaching example, but flag the repeated 'Call to action' titles and missing operational close as the lessons in what to fix.”
↓ Three slides (p.18, p.22, p.26) all titled 'Call to action' — a topic label repeated verbatim, the opposite of action titling
74
title quality
February Macro Brief
“A well-titled, thesis-opened macro periodical that functions as a chart-pack briefing rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.1-22 as a teaching example of opening + regional MECE, but the 40-slide indicator tail and missing recommendation make the full deck a weak structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing/recommendation act — deck dies on p.62 bond-yield chart and p.63 team bio; the capex thesis is never re-landed for the executive reader
74
title quality
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 4 Climate change & ecosystem at risk
“A solid trend-research deck with strong numerate action titles in the middle, but it opens with throat-clearing and lands with generic recommendations — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for SCQA structure.”
↓ First 5 slides are meta-context about the Trend Compendium rather than a thesis or hook — no SCQA opening
74
title quality
Generative AI: A boost for Operations
“A competent webinar deck with strong action titles and a clean close, but the four repeated agendas and question-style opener make it a useful teaching example for closing CTAs and case-study integration rather than a Storymakers exemplar of a single S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Four repeated 'Today's agenda' slides (p.3, 10, 15, 25) bloat the deck and signal a stitched-together webinar rather than a single argument
74
title quality
Blueprint for Advancing Metabolic Health
“Solid McKinsey white paper with a clean SCQA spine and one exemplary action-title slide (p.7), but the recommendation is buried and the deck trails off into quotes - useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Closing collapses: p.17 'Time to put it all together' is the recommendation slide but its title is generic and there is no explicit ask, owner, or next step.
74
title quality
Perspective on Tower & Fiber
“A competent McKinsey 'perspective' brief with strong stakes-setting and mostly declarative titles, but it ends on a menu instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of opening discipline, not as a Storymakers exemplar of resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7 ends on "several strategic plays available," which is a menu, not a verdict.
74
title quality
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
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
AFF 2023 HKTDC and PwC’s Joint Pulse Survey
“A competently structured survey-readout deck with strong data-bearing action titles but a weak opening and label-style dividers — useful as an example of slide-level action titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening hook or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening is wasted: cover → generic 'Introduction' (p.2) → topic divider (p.3); the thesis is never stated up front
74
title quality
Maximizing Value Potential from AI in 2025
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with quantified action titles and a concrete close, but it reads as an analytical benefits-parade rather than a true SCQA arc — use the title craft and case-study pages as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from opportunity (p.3-5) straight into benefits (p.6-14) with no 'why most firms fail' slide
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
The time for climate action is now
“A solid BCG thought-leadership piece with strong numerate action titles and a real S→C→R backbone, but the flat 7-action list and soft, appendix-tailed close make it a better teaching example for title quality than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Front matter bloat: p.1-3 all live in setup/context mode before the problem lands on p.5, burying the lede
74
title quality
IT SERVICES The Rates of Success, Goals, and Future Priorities of Digital Transformations, by Sector
“A competent BCG benchmarking note with strong answer-first opening and insight-bearing analytical titles, but it ends without a recommendation and lets its core priority section collapse into topic labels — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the first half, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps act — deck ends on an ESG data slide (p.16) followed only by an author contact page (p.17)
74
title quality
Vaccines & Therapeutics Outlook Part I: Timelines and Success Factors
“A data-rich BCG Perspectives explainer with strong analytical titles but no Resolution act — use p.12–p.17 as a teaching example for declarative action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Two section dividers share an identical title (p.7 and p.20) even though the second section pivots to macro/retail/TSR data — breaks MECE and confuses the reader
74
title quality
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“Solid analytical build with a genuinely strong tension hook on p.8, but the recommendation is under-developed and the close fades into annex — use the paradox framing and country-benchmark sequence as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slide p.22 is advisory-but-vague; no explicit 'what to do Monday morning' recommendation list
74
title quality
Accenture Post and Parcel Industry Research 2019
“A solid industry thought-leadership report with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts, but weak Storymakers exemplar overall — use sections 1–2 as a model for action titles and MECE build, not as a template for opening and close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 3–5 pages — reader must reach p.21 '5 SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES DETERMINE HIGH PERFORMANCE' to find the organizing answer
74
title quality
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030: Megatrend 1 People & Society
“A disciplined, data-rich trend compendium with above-average action titles, but a weak Storymakers exemplar — no upfront thesis, no MECE pillar dividers, and a close that degenerates into three identical business-development CTAs; teach from individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ Three back-to-back CTA slides (p.69-71) carry identical titles and identical callouts — collapses the close into a marketing loop instead of a recommendation
74
title quality
10th Operations Efficiency Radar
“A solid, MECE-structured analytical study with above-average action titles in its core, but it opens with a three-part summary instead of a single thesis and closes with marketing rather than a CTA — use the analytical middle (p.14-26) as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Recommendation is buried — p.27 lands the call to action, but six more pages of framework/methodology/contacts follow, draining momentum
74
title quality
ASEAN Growth and Scale Talent Playbook
“A well-pillared analytical playbook with strong data-driven action titles, but it buries its thesis under 11 pages of forewords and ends without a recommendation — use the middle (pp.13-30 diagnosis, pp.31-67 MECE pillars) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the framing.”
↓ 11 slides of front matter (pp.1-11) with five forewords delays the thesis past any executive's attention budget
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
74
title quality
Outlook on the automotive software and electronics market through 2030
“A competent McKinsey market-outlook brief with strong action titles and an answer-first opener, but it lacks tension and a concrete recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.9 closes with a generic 'Conclusion' topic label and an exhortation rather than a prioritized recommendation or next-step list
74
title quality
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title