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
726 matching · page 16 / 31
62
title quality
AI Healthcare Errors
“A well-evidenced analytical case-study tour with strong mid-deck action titles, but it lacks the SCQA opener and synthesis closer needed to work as a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 9, 15 and 16 for teaching declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the title promises 'preventing healthcare errors' but no slide in pp.1–8 sizes the error problem or names the Question
62
title quality
Lebanon Economic Vision
“A textbook McKinsey government strategy report with a genuinely strong SCQA diagnosis chapter, but the 1,274-page length, procedural opening, and topic-label-heavy sector dives bury the storyline — use the first 22 slides as a teaching example of analytical build-up, and the rest as a cautionary tale on appendix-as-deck.”
↓ The 1,274-page total length is itself the biggest narrative failure — the story ends at p.149 and the remaining ~1,100 pages of appendix-as-deck dilute every editorial choice that came before
62
title quality
COVID-19 Business Recovery Vancouver
“A competent McKinsey scenario-and-learnings deck with disciplined three-pillar scaffolding and good quantified titles on data pages, but it buries its thesis at the open and dilutes its recommendation at the close — useful as a teaching example for action-titled charts and pillar dividers, not as a Storymakers SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Opening is a slow burn — agenda on p.3 and a topic-label scenario chart on p.4 delay the thesis; no answer-first slide in the first 5 pages
62
title quality
Global Economics Intelligence Apr 2023
“A competent McKinsey periodic intelligence monitor with a strong opening thesis but no closing argument — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides and MECE geographic structure, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it lacks Complication-Resolution arc and ends without a recommendation.”
↓ Country section dividers (p6, p12, p16, p19, p22, p25) are pure noun labels — wasted real estate where a pillar insight should live
62
title quality
Secure your future people experience Five imperatives for action
“A textbook MECE-pillar consulting deck with strong case-study evidence and a clean five-act body, but a buried opener and an essay-style close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Soft close: p.31-32 read like an essay coda rather than a recommendation slide; no prioritization, sequencing, or 'where to start' guidance
62
title quality
Global Consumer Insights Survey 2023 ME
“A structurally sound SCQA spine wrapped around chart-label titles and a deflated ending — useful as a teaching example for section architecture and a cautionary example for action titles and closes.”
↓ Body slides repeatedly use 'Figure X: <question>' as the action title (pp. 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16) — descriptive, not insight-bearing
62
title quality
Medical Affairs Outlook Report
“A competent industry-outlook report with a recognizable arc and a few strong action titles, but it leads with topic instead of thesis and ends in platitude — useful as a 'callouts done right' example, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening (p.1–3) never states the thesis — the executive summary callout is a vague consensus statement, not the answer
62
title quality
Blockchain and Digital Assets
“Solid McKinsey-grade primer/landscape deck with strong numbers and case examples, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches the wrong lesson - use individual slides (p.31, p.35, p.27) to teach quantified action titles and case framing, not the overall structure, which lacks Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No 'so what': there is no recommendation slide, no call to action, no decision the audience is being asked to make - the deck stops, it doesn't conclude
62
title quality
Insurance Trends and Growth Opportunities for Poland (2015)
“Solid analytical setup and several insight-bearing titles, but the deck is a trend tour that never resolves into a recommendation - useful as a teaching example for S->C framing on p.3-4, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution: 'Topics for the debate' (p.24) abdicates the recommendation a consulting deck owes its audience
62
title quality
LIVING BUSINESS Achieving Sustainable Growth Through Hyper-Relevance
“A solid thought-leadership report with genuinely MECE pillars and strong analytical titles in the build-up, but fragment-style pillar slides and a missing recommendation act make it a useful teaching example for framework structure, not for full Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Pillar content slides (p14, p17, p21, p24, p27) all use colon-fragment titles like 'Companies should:' - reads as a placeholder for bullets, not a Storymakers action title
62
title quality
Lazards Lcoeplus
“A best-in-class industry reference report with strong MECE bones and several insight-bearing titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the answer-first test and dies in an appendix — use individual slides (p.5, p.32, p.39) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No answer-first opening — 4 slides of front matter before any claim, and no executive summary up front
62
title quality
Simple & Digital Customer Experience Model
“A conceptual framework walkthrough on NPS/CX with strong individual action titles in the analytical middle but no narrative arc, no opening thesis, and no closing recommendation - useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (pp.5, 9, 13), not for deck structure.”
↓ Opening five slides contain zero thesis statement - two covers plus three framework intros
62
title quality
TEF Application Evaluation 2019
“Solid descriptive evaluation report with strong insight-bearing analysis titles, but it lacks SCQA tension and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative architecture.”
↓ No resolution or call-to-action — the deck ends mid-analysis on p.27 ('ALL 36 STATES AND THE FCT WERE REPRESENTED…') and rolls straight into the appendix
62
title quality
Spring 2022 National Client Meeting
“An event-agenda deck dressed as a strategy story — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.45, p.46, p.56) but a weak Storymakers exemplar overall because it has no resolution and stitches three independent narratives together.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on Netflix-content trends (p.59–62) and 'Thank you!' (p.65) with zero recommendation, ask, or next-step — the closing_ask tag is misleading.
62
title quality
Sovereign Debt Restructuring
“A competent policy-brief deck with one strong, repeated quantified insight, but it buries the thesis behind heavy front matter and topic-label timelines - useful as a teaching example for repeated-stat reinforcement and case-comparator structure, not for opening or MECE pillaring.”
↓ Front matter consumes 21% of the deck (pp.1-3 cover/disclaimer/TOC) before any insight lands
62
title quality
Ready for resilience How to navigate the new tariff landscape
“A well-scaffolded thought-leadership piece with a real S-C-A-R spine and two strong action titles, but the recommendation is under-built — use the p.7/p.9 titles as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis — p.4 is titled 'Introduction' instead of leading with the answer
62
title quality
The front-runners’ guide to scaling AI Lessons from industry leaders
“A well-researched Accenture POV with strong analytical scaffolding and good quantified claims, but the five-imperatives payoff section drops into topic labels and the close fizzles into a metaphor — use p8-17 as a teaching example of insight-titled analysis, not the recommendations section or the ending.”
↓ Five imperative titles (p22, p24, p25, p27, p29) are verb-phrase topic labels, not insight titles — readers skimming headlines learn the imperative names but not the evidence behind them
62
title quality
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
62
title quality
PwC Golden Age index Unlocking a potential $3.5 trillion prize from longer working lives
“A solid analyst-led research report with strong answer-first opening and quantified action titles in the core build, but the recommendation lands mid-deck and the close trails off into benchmark and correlation appendices — useful as a teaching example for quantified callouts and exec-summary framing, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Recommendation buried at p.25 of 57 with no closing reprise — the deck ends in correlation analysis (p.50) before methodology
62
title quality
Vehicle-as-a-Service From vehicle ownership to usage-based subscription models
“A disciplined Deloitte industry POV with a strong answer-first opening and a rallying close — usable as a Storymakers exemplar for S→C→A→R framing and call-to-action craft, but the middle analytical pillars are a cautionary tale on MECE sprawl and topic-label titles.”
↓ Eight numbered sections with overlapping scope — 05 LTV and 06 Operating Model read as the same idea split in two
62
title quality
Mental health today A deep dive based on the 2023 Gen Z and Millennial survey
“A competent, research-backed Deloitte thought-leadership deck with the bones of a Storymakers arc but soft titles and a buried thesis - use p.5 and p.8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Multiple slides (p.7, p.15, p.22, p.23) carry the report's running header as their title, leaving the reader without an action title on key hinge pages - including the two final recommendation slides.
62
title quality
2022 Global Marketing Trends
“Competent thought-leadership trends report with strong per-chapter analytic mini-arcs and several exemplary data-driven action titles, but reuses topic labels as titles and lacks a closing synthesis — use the analytical sections (cookieless p.35–38, DEI p.19–23) as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the deck structure as a whole.”
↓ No closing synthesis: the deck moves from AI case study (p.60) directly into appendices (p.61–62) and front-matter (p.63–68), missing the Storymakers 'Resolution' act at the deck level
62
title quality
07 investorupdate2018 pc
“A competent investor-update deck with a thesis-up-front opening and quantified support, but flat pillar structure and several topic-label titles keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.3-4 and the quantified callouts as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ Several pure topic-label titles — p.8 'Corporate & Institutional Clients', p.12 'Loan portfolio', p.19 'Financial targets', p.20 'Key messages' — squander the action-title slot
62
title quality
Morgan Stanley Investor Presentation
“A competent IR deck with a clean three-pillar strategy spine but a missing Complication and a drifting close — use p.13-15 as a teaching example of pillared recommendation, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No explicit Complication: the deck asserts strength but never frames the tension (rate environment, student-loan policy risk, federal competition) the strategy is meant to resolve