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
737 matching · page 16 / 31
68
title quality
How nine digital frontrunners can lead on AI in Europe
“A well-sectioned McKinsey research report with solid quantification and a real recommendations chapter, but the thesis is buried behind a long definitional setup and the argument dissolves into a 14-page bibliography -- use it to teach sizing and sector deep-dives, not as an exemplar of opening or close.”
↓ Thesis is buried: the real 'answer' slide (p.20 'The nine digital frontrunners could play a leading role in Europe') sits 19 pages in, behind a 10-slide 'What is AI' definitional wade.
68
title quality
Global Economics Intelligence Feb 2024
“A competent macro-monitor dashboard with strong quantitative titles in spots, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary tale of a geographic topic-dump with no arc, no tension, and no close — use it to teach what 'analytical build without narrative' looks like.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck terminates on a Brazil PMI chart (p.28) with no 'implications' or recommendation
68
title quality
2019 Global Treasury Benchmarking
“A competent benchmarking survey with above-average thesis-style dividers and number-led headlines, but it reads as six parallel mini-essays rather than one Storymakers arc — use the pillar dividers and recommendation slides as teaching examples, not the overall structure or close.”
↓ Two back-to-back 'Theme overviews' dividers (p.4 and p.5) waste opening real estate and signal a topic dump rather than a story.
68
title quality
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4 2022
“A competent quarterly market bulletin with a strong opening and quotable callouts, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title openings and TCO framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.21–23 with three identical 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables, then contacts, then 'Thank you' — zero recommendations or implications for OEMs/policymakers.
68
title quality
Lloyd’s and Bermuda
“A competent analytical talk-deck with a strong middle (quantified action titles, well-built reserving and rate-hardening story) but a definitional opening and a hand-wave ending — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analysis slides, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no thesis or stakes — reader doesn't know the question being answered until ~p.11
68
title quality
The Future of Procurement: Why is Technology Lagging Behind?
“A solid analytical middle wrapped in a bloated front-matter and a vendor-plus-change-mgmt tail — useful as a teaching example for action titles in the p.14–25 run, but not a Storymakers exemplar for overall arc, opening, or close.”
↓ Five-slide front-matter runway (p.1–5) before any argument; no thesis-forward opener
68
title quality
The Reinvention of Retail Banking: How focused business models can unlock value
“A competent strategy& thought-leadership pamphlet with a recognisable S-C-A-R spine and a strong recommendation triad, but the framework core and section numbering wobble enough that it works better as a teaching example for editorial titles and closing structure than as a clean Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 03 -> 05 between p.9 and p.16 with no visible 04 divider, breaking the MECE promise of the pillar structure
68
title quality
Gen AI amplified
“A well-sourced, well-opened thought-leadership deck with a discernible SCQA spine but a muddled third act and a rhetorical-not-actionable close — a useful teaching example for hook-writing and data-backed executive summaries, but not a Storymakers exemplar for framework discipline or call-to-action.”
↓ Post-recommendation slides p.17-18 re-open diagnostic questions ('Automation or augmentation?', 'The critical role of clinical leadership') after the framework has been delivered — breaks the S→C→A→R cadence
68
title quality
Aluminum Cans Market Assessment - Australia
“Solid analytical fact-base with declarative titles, but it's a research dossier rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and MECE benchmarking, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution — the deck ends on p.34 with an economics observation and p.35 logo; reader is left to infer the 'so what'
68
title quality
Consumers at 250
“A competently titled survey-findings report with a strong 'X vs. Y' pillar device, but it stops at analysis and never resolves into a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension framing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendations or 'so what' slide — deck dies on an industry data table (p.30)
68
title quality
Achieving Supply Chain Resilience in a Volatile World
“A tight, disciplined executive perspective with a recognizable S→C→A→R arc, but the recommendation fizzles — useful as a teaching example for compact narrative structure, not for how to land a close.”
↓ p.9 recommendation title ends in a colon ('...policies that:') — the deck's punchline is effectively a setup line, not a resolution
68
title quality
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A well-organised, MECE sector outlook with solid action titles on body slides but no opening hook and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and pillar consistency, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Nine 'Key Takeaways' slides reuse the same non-insight title instead of stating the takeaway in the headline
68
title quality
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
“A meticulous Kearney FactBook with strong action titles and MECE pillars but no narrative resolution - use slides 4, 14, 17 and 50 as exemplars of declarative titling, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers archetype.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide - the deck ends on patent counts (p.147-148) and a list of active companies (p.149) rather than 'what should the reader do'
68
title quality
Driving innovation at scale
“A McKinsey board-education deck with strong analytical mid-section and headline-grade data points, but it buries its recommendation in the appendix and opens with anecdote — use the fear-culture build (p.18–22) and the data-driven titles as exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is missing from the main body — p.24 closes on an open question, and the most persuasive numbers (2.4x profit on p.31, 97% outperformance on p.27, iQ CTA on p.32) are dumped into the appendix.
68
title quality
The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it
“Competent McKinsey explainer that opens well and uses number-led titles, but it is an analytical breakdown not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of clean BLUF openings and quantified action titles, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'what this means for you' slide — deck jumps from STEM funding (p.7) straight to author bios (p.8).
68
title quality
Payment providers
“A competent HFS/Deloitte analyst report with genuinely strong action titles in its analytical middle, but structurally it's a topic-dump with a buried thesis and no recommendation — use slides 17/20/24/25 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ Thesis is buried — executive summary sits at p.16/34, so a reader skimming the first third never meets the argument
68
title quality
Deloitte 2019 Industry 4.0 Readiness Survey
“A tidy four-pillar benchmark excerpt with solid action titles in the middle but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — useful as a teaching example of parallel-pillar analytical slides, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or «so what» slide — the deck ends on Methodology (p.8) with zero call to action
68
title quality
global advisor earth day perils of perception environment gb
“A competent survey-results deck with a strong belief-vs-reality device and a clean three-pillar spine, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title-as-finding pairings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck stops analyzing on p.26 and never tells the audience what to do, recommend, or believe differently
68
title quality
Ipsos Global Views on AI and Disinformation full report
“A well-titled Ipsos data-release deck with solid declarative findings but no SCQA arc or recommendation — useful as an exemplar of headline-stat action titles, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No 'So what?' — deck ends at p.6 with a data point, skipping any recommendation, implication, or next step
68
title quality
cx global insights 2025 ipsos sneak peek
“A credible research teaser with strong stat-driven action titles in the middle, but it opens ceremonially and ends on a contact card — use p.5-p.9 as a teaching example of data-led titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.12 'For more information' substitutes a contact card for a call to action
68
title quality
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
68
title quality
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
68
title quality
ey mobility consumer index mci 2022 study
“A solid annual-research findings deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it is an analytical report rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends at p10 'Concerns' + p11 demographics with no recommendation, implication, or call to action
68
title quality
IMD Morgan Stanley Final 13 June 2019
“Competent regional-bank investor deck with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it never states a Complication and ends in disclaimers — useful as an exemplar of pillar architecture and peer-benchmark evidence, not as a full SCQA narrative or strong close.”
↓ No Complication: deck shows strengths without naming a tension or risk, so there is nothing for the recommendation to resolve