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 2 / 31
82
title quality
Semiconductor shortage: A different kind of trouble ahead
“A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.9 contact, p.10 about us) dilute the recommendation — no quantified next steps or memorable closing visual
82
title quality
What if the eurozone were to enter a recession? Roland Berger Institute
“A tightly-written analytical brief with exemplary action titles but no explicit MECE dividers and no recommendation slide; use it as a teaching example for sentence-titles, not for full story-arc structure.”
↓ No section dividers — the four-mechanism MECE (investment, layoffs, consumption, government) is invisible without reading every title
82
title quality
Trend 2050 Economics and Business
“A high-quality analytical compendium with exemplary action-title craft and rigorous pillar logic, undermined by invisible section transitions and a sales-pitch closing — use pp6-83 as a teaching example for action titles, but not the opening or closing arc.”
↓ Closing pp85-87 is a generic three-part CTA ('Let's talk... 1/3, 2/3, 3/3') with identical 'Learn how Roland Berger can help' callouts — no concrete recommendations or implications synthesized
82
title quality
NY COVID-19 Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment
“A rigorous analytical impact assessment with strong action titles and a clean SCQ build-up, but it stops before the R - use it as a teaching example for sector deep-dives and exec summaries, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on Transportation data (p.35) with zero recommendations or asks despite the cover letter framing federal funding as the central question
82
title quality
Understanding the path to digital marketing maturity
“Solid mid-tier exemplar of a research-report deck with disciplined action titles and a complete arc, but buries its sharpest insight on p.7 — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, less so for opening-hook craft.”
↓ Lead is buried: the punchy '2% are mature' insight sits on p.7 instead of p.2 or p.3 where it would set the tension
82
title quality
Forecasting a Realistic Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
“A strong analytical Roland Berger build with quantified action titles and clean MECE decomposition by charging archetype, but it stops at analysis and never closes the loop with a recommendation — use slides 4-11 as a teaching example for quantified titling, not as a structural template.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — the deck stops analyzing on p.12 and then drops into segmentation (p.14) and methodology (p.15) instead of a 'what to do' page
82
title quality
Indonesia Venture Capital Outlook 2017
“A well-executed analytical funnel with strong action titles and a clear policy landing — use p.4-8 as a teaching example of zoom-in context-setting, but not the overall structure: it buries its thesis and lacks the section pillars and synthesis close a Storymakers exemplar requires.”
↓ No executive summary or upfront thesis — reader must reach p.8 before the Indonesia story is asserted
82
title quality
Surveyed nurses consider leaving direct patient care at elevated rates
“A well-titled analytical research brief with a strong opening hook but no real recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for SCQA story arc.”
↓ Closing is effectively absent — p.11's one-sentence recommendation is generic and disclaimer-styled, p.12 is bios
82
title quality
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
82
title quality
US consumers send mixed signals in an uncertain economy
“Tight, well-titled McKinsey insight brief with a real recommendation at the end — use the action titles and SCQA closure as a teaching example, but flag the missing pillar structure and the unflagged trade-down/splurge paradox as the gaps.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — pp.3-9 read as a topic dump rather than grouped pillars (sentiment / spending / channel)
82
title quality
2022 consumer community banking investor day
“A disciplined, well-anchored investor-day portfolio review with strong declarative titles and quantified callouts — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft and section navigation, but not for end-to-end SCQA narrative because it lacks a Complication and a synthesis close.”
↓ No Complication act: 106 pages without a single slide framing a real threat, gap, or 'what we got wrong' — the macro/credit slide at p.54 ('rapidly changing macro environment') is the closest, but it is immediately neutralised rather than developed into tension.
82
title quality
firm overview
“A polished investor-day overview with textbook action-title craft on the financial slides, but it ends in restatement rather than resolution — use p.6-14 as a teaching example of headline writing, not the deck's overall narrative arc.”
↓ Closing slide p.16 restates the thesis instead of resolving with a recommendation, watchlist, or commitment metrics — the deck ends on reassurance, not action
82
title quality
2022 global technology
“Solid investor-day technology narrative with disciplined action titles and quantified callouts, but it reads as a capabilities tour rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.4-10 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication — p.4 frames expense growth as 'driven by investments' (a positive), missing the chance to set tension before resolving it
82
title quality
2022 corporate investment bank investor day
“A polished investor-day deck with exemplary action-title discipline and number-anchored proof, but it pitches four parallel business cases rather than telling one SCQA story — use slides 3-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No real Complication — the deck never names a threat, gap, or risk that the strategy resolves; even 'rate headwinds' (p.12) and 'deposit margin compression' (p.29) are framed as already-overcome
81
title quality
Grocery profitability outlook –Europe
“Disciplined analytical build with exemplary action titles and quantified levers, but it tapers into case studies without a closing recommendation — use the diagnosis and impact-sizing sections (p.5-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the resolution arc.”
↓ No closing synthesis or CTA slide — deck terminates on a Walmart case study (p.40) before the appendix.
80
title quality
Vietnam Logistics
“A competent A&M pitch-style market-opportunity report with strong action titles and a clean answer-first opening, but it buries the tension and has no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles and Cainiao-style precedent use, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends at p.16 analysis, then jumps straight to Contacts and team bios
80
title quality
Beyond good intentions
“A solid short-form point-of-view deck with clean SCQA bones and a strong three-pillar resolution — use p.10-13 as a teaching example of how to mirror a recommendation across slides, but nudge the opening and add dividers to make it truly exemplary.”
↓ p.3 'About this Report' is a generic front-matter label that stalls the opening instead of advancing the thesis
80
title quality
End of management as we know it
“Well-scaffolded problem-diagnosis deck with strong action titles and MECE dividers, but the 'answer' act is thin and there's no explicit recommendation — use the opening and divider chain as a Storymakers teaching example, not the resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — p.28 is an illustrative observation, not a call to action
80
title quality
Future of Work Deskless Worker
“A crisp, data-driven survey read-out with strong action titles and a thesis-forward open, but it under-delivers the 'so what' — use the opening and analytical middle as a teaching example, not the closing.”
↓ No 'so what for the business' slide — cost of attrition, replacement cost, or productivity impact is never quantified
80
title quality
AI at Work APAC
“A solid BCG survey-insight deck with strong action titles and a real tension, but it buries the complication mid-deck and ends on a topic-labeled imperatives page — use pp.5-15 as a teaching example for declarative analytical titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ The tension slide (p.11) arrives at slide 11 of 22 — the 'fear' complication should enter earlier to tension the optimism narrative built in pp.4-10.
80
title quality
AI-Enabled Engineering Excellence
“A well-argued BCG executive perspective with strong action titles and a legible S-C-A-R arc, but the middle sprawls across overlapping frameworks and the close lacks a punchy restatement — use its opening and title craft as Storymakers exemplars, not its pillar structure or landing.”
↓ No mid-deck section dividers — pillars are implied by title prefixes ('Challenges |', 'Measuring value |', 'Getting started |') rather than visibly MECE.
80
title quality
European Consumer Sentiment Survey: How current events in Europe are shaping consumer behavior
“A textbook McKinsey consumer-research deck with a strong opening and disciplined three-pillar MECE spine, but it stops at analysis — use it as an exemplar for action titles and pillar structure, not for the full Storymakers S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on data slides (p38–p39 splurge intent) and a blank McKinsey logo (p40), with no 'implications for retailers/brands' or call to action
80
title quality
Poverty Empowerment India
“Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.”
↓ p.14 'BACK UP' divider sits in the middle of the recommendation arc, not at the end — it fragments the resolution act
80
title quality
Global Oil Outlook 2040
“A tight, well-titled market-outlook summary that opens strongly and writes excellent action titles, but stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on analysis (p.7) then boilerplate (p.8-9), violating the Resolution act