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
137 matching · page 2 / 6
74
title quality
The “new” rules of engagement
“A solid survey-report deck with strong action titles and a readable tension-release arc, but it leads with context rather than the answer and under-delivers on the close — use p.7-12 as a teaching example of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.4 and p.5 are near-duplicate 'key message' slides up front — redundancy dilutes the opening
74
title quality
2023 Post Parcel industry trends
“A well-evidenced industry point-of-view with a clean three-act skeleton and strong declarative middle, but it opens with credentials and closes with a teaser — use the diagnostic section (p.10-15) as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 4 of the first 5 slides are credentials/thought-leadership, and the core answer ('Total Enterprise Reinvention') does not appear until p.20
74
title quality
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q4 2023
“A strong-opening BCG pulse report with declarative action titles worth teaching from, but it has no closing act and buries itself in a 7-slide table appendix — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as exemplars for 'answer-first' titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends at p18 and then devolves into a 7-slide appendix of comparison tables (p19-25) with no recommendation or call-to-action.
74
title quality
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition
“A solid analytical report with strong middle-act action titles, but it ends on a framework instead of a recommendation and hides its thesis behind scene-setting — use its analytical slides (p.8, p.22-25) as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ Resolution act is a framework, not a recommendation — p.32-33 tell brands to 'decide which role to play' without naming which roles or priorities
74
title quality
Corporate Ventures in Sweden
“A solid BCG diagnostic deck with strong data-driven action titles and a clean analytical build, but it stops at 'here is the opportunity' and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for benchmarking and diagnosis slides, not for Storymakers resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the narrative ends on 'success factors Sweden can build on' (p.15) without telling the reader what to do
74
title quality
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
74
title quality
Venture Pulse Q3 2024
“A reference-grade quarterly intelligence report with unusually disciplined action titles and MECE geographic structure, but no SCQA arc and no close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and parallel section design, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — the deck ends at p.91 with regional data and rolls straight into 'About us' (pp.92–94) and disclaimers (pp.95–96)
74
title quality
Impact of the US BIOSECURE Act on Biopharmas, Contract Services and Investors
“A competent, quant-anchored survey readout with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it sells its own findings short by ending in a capabilities pitch instead of a recommendation - use slides 7-8 as examples of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a capabilities slide (p.11) and a sales CTA (p.12) instead of a recommendation for biopharmas, CxOs or investors
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
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
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
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
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
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
Women @ Work 2023: 7 The Gender Equality Leaders are benefiting from doing it right
“A well-organized thematic research report with unusually strong section dividers and insight-bearing body titles, but generic 'Executive summary' and 'Our recommendations' bookends blunt both the opener and the close — use the section dividers and body slides as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Executive summary' (pp.3-5) and three titled 'Our recommendations' (pp.35-37) — the most important bookend slides use topic labels instead of insights
74
title quality
2019 Holiday Survey of Consumers Keeping the good times rolling
“A competently titled but structurally flat research-findings deck — use its slide-level action titles and quantified callouts as teaching examples, but not its architecture, which buries the recommendation and ends on a methodology slide.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — the 'How to win the holidays' section (p.29-31) is only 3 slides and describes high-spender demographics rather than prescribing retailer actions
74
title quality
Introduction to Ipsos May 2024
“A competent corporate capabilities deck with good action titles and a quantified spine, but it's a company tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a reference for title craft, not as an exemplar of SCQA structure or a strong close.”
↓ Duplicate titles on p.10 and p.11 («OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA» / «...THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA») — an editing miss that fractures the strategy section
73
title quality
Southeast Asia’s digital consumers: A new stage of evolution
“A well-resourced thought-leadership report with a real S->C->A->R spine and many strong metric-anchored action titles, but the diluted opening, sprawling analytical middle and trailing close keep it as a solid B+ Storymakers exemplar rather than a top-tier one - useful as a teaching example for action-titles and pillar dividers, less so for opening/closing discipline.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Introduction' (pp 6-8) waste the opening real estate after a strong p5 hook
72
title quality
Accelerating net zero 2050
“A solidly-built thought-leadership report with answer-first framing and a clear call to action, but over-long openings and under-signposted middle acts keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use p.22-30 as a teaching example of analysis-to-recommendation flow, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Redundant openings: p.3 'executive summary' + p.4 'key findings' + p.5 'executive summary' repeat the same 93% stat three times in three pages
72
title quality
The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight (7th Edition)
“A competent BCG industry-insights report with strong data-bearing action titles, but narratively it is an analytical dump without an SCQA resolution — use pp.9, 11, 14, 18 as teaching examples for action-title quality, not the overall structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide: thesis only hinted at on p.6 after 5 front-matter/context pages
72
title quality
Evaluating NYC media sector
“A competent sector-scan deliverable with strong slide-level action titles but weak narrative architecture — use the analytical slides (p.6-25) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ 10 redundant 'Agenda' slides (p.5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 31, 37) — roughly 24% of the deck is navigation chrome
72
title quality
SDG Guide for Business Leaders
“A competent McKinsey playbook with a strong three-pillar spine and mostly declarative titles, but it opens with two TOCs and ends with templates instead of a recommendation - use the INSPIRE/ENGAGE/IMPACT structure as a teaching example, not the framing or close.”
↓ Two tables of contents back-to-back (pp.2 and 4) signal weak editorial discipline before the deck even begins
72
title quality
PUBLIC TRUST IN AI: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND REGULATION
“A competent five-act research report with a clear spine and several genuinely declarative slide titles, but the soft opening, noun-phrase dividers, and principle-level closing keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use the risks/benefits section (p.11–14) as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns four slides on cover/intro/TOC/takeaways before any evidence (p.1–4); a Storymakers opener would collapse these and lead with the answer