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
635 matching · page 2 / 27
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
80
title quality
ICO Class of 2017
“A tight, thesis-led analytical report with strong action titles in the middle, but it ends on a topic label instead of a recommendation — use pp2-10 as a teaching example of quantified action titles, not the closing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide — p11 'Key takeaways and outlook' is a topic label with a hedged VC-comparison callout
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
GenAI German Labor Market
“A well-evidenced analytical build with strong quantified action titles, but the story arc resolves twice and never closes — use the p.10-16 analytical sequence as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing call-to-action — deck trails off on benchmarking (p.23) and a logo slide (p.24) instead of a 'so what / now what' resolution
80
title quality
The seventh disruption to the Global Polymer Industry
“A well-crafted historical build-up that earns its thesis but stops at problem-framing — use slides 2-8 as a teaching example of inductive action titles, not the deck as a whole, since the recommendation act is missing.”
↓ No explicit recommendation slide — p.11 substitutes a Roland Berger credentials pitch for a concrete answer to 'how do you win the seventh disruption?'
80
title quality
Sustainability Study 2019
“Solid analytical mini-study with strong numerate action titles, but it is a research-findings deck dressed as a pitch — use pp.6–11 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc, which buries the recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/so-what slide — deck ends on firm credentials (p.13) and 'Thank you!' (p.14), throwing away the analytical build-up
80
title quality
Digital Auto Report 2023
“A well-titled, MECE-structured analytical report with strong action titles in the data section, but it front-loads 16 slides of consumer evidence and compresses the strategic answer into a single recommendation slide — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar dividers, not for narrative arc.”
↓ p.5-20 is 16 consecutive analyze_data slides with no internal section divider — feels like a research dump preceding the strategic story
80
title quality
Southeast Asia’s Green Economy 2022 Report
“A well-disciplined Bain/Temasek market report with strong action titles and a textbook four-action close - useful as a Storymakers exemplar for sector deep-dive structure and recommendation slides, but not for opening hooks or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Six identical section dividers (pp.41, 42, 47, 52, 60, 65) using the same question - reads as a placeholder, not MECE pillars
80
title quality
The net-zero transition
“A solid McKinsey-style analytical build with disciplined number-led titles and a clear thesis, but the recommendation is hedged and the close defaults to a download CTA — use the analytical middle (p.8–13) as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide (p.17) is a research-download URL, wasting the most memorable real estate in the deck
80
title quality
Global trade redefined: Early insights and economic impacts of new agreements
“A tight, well-titled economic briefing with strong evidence per slide, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — use it as an exemplar of action titles and quantified callouts, not of full S-C-A-R closure.”
↓ No resolution / recommendation slide — deck ends on team bio (p.7) and 'Thank you' (p.8) with zero call to action
80
title quality
Hydrogen: Closing the cost gap
“A solid analytical McKinsey build with strong quantified titles and a clean three-bucket MECE, but it buries its named framework and lets the recommendation drift into the appendix - use pp. 10-13 as a teaching example for analytical staircases, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing slide p. 19 reverts to a vague topic-style title and lacks a crisp recommendation or next-step CTA
80
title quality
The State of Fashion Luxury
“A disciplined McKinsey/BoF analytical deck with strong data-bearing action titles and a clear three-act spine, but it diagnoses far better than it prescribes and closes on a single generic recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Closing recommendation (p.50) is generic and singular — the 'five strategic imperatives' teased on p.7 are never enumerated as a numbered close
80
title quality
Foodservice Market Monitor
“Analytically rigorous market monitor with above-average action titles, but structured as a data compendium that buries its single recommendation before a tool pitch — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for Storymakers arc design.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.4, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38) substitute for real MECE section dividers and break narrative momentum
80
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
78
title quality
A&M Valuation Insights – German vs. European Banks
“Tight, well-titled analytical brief with strong headline+driver titles but no thesis opener or recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full S→C→A→R narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.5 is labeled key_takeaways but reads as another data slide, and p.6 jumps straight to contacts
78
title quality
UAE Banking Pulse
“A competent analytical pulse report with strong declarative titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — use p.4–p.6 as a teaching example of insight-bearing action titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — the deck ends on a KPI recap (p.7) then straight into glossary
78
title quality
Fast-moving consumer goods: Driving value creation in an era of disruption
“A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Diagnosis act is only ~3 slides (p.5-7) before pivoting to recommendations on p.9, leaving the 'why these 5 imperatives' logic underbuilt
78
title quality
The CEO’s Roadmap on Generative AI
“A well-structured three-pillar BCG executive perspective with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it opens slowly and ends in a checklist rather than a recommendation — use pp.5, 14, 15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Resolution is thin — p.31 'companies can adopt the following policies today' is a generic checklist, and p.32 is a team-bio slide; there is no synthesis slide restating the pillar-level recommendations
78
title quality
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
78
title quality
Gen Z Attitudes Toward Higher Education
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong action titles and one good transition hinge, but flat structure and a soft landing make it a title-craft exemplar rather than a full Storymakers model.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — the 11 analytical slides read as a flat sequence rather than grouped chapters
78
title quality
How Can US Brands Reach Gen Z
“A well-titled but structurally incomplete insights handout — great teaching example for declarative action titles, poor exemplar for Storymakers narrative arc or MECE pillars.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck asks 'what do brands need to know?' on p.2 but never answers 'therefore, do X'
78
title quality
US Natural Gas Future Standalone
“Strong analytical build with disciplined action titles and well-named pillars, but the arc sequences scenarios before constraints and closes with a restatement rather than a recommendation — use it as a Storymakers exemplar for title craft and pillar labeling, not for SCQA sequencing or endings.”
↓ Section order inverts SCQA: Scenarios (p16-18) come before Constraints (p19-21), so the 'question' is posed before the complication that makes it urgent
78
title quality
2017 China Luxury Market Study
“A well-titled analytical market briefing with strong pull-quotes but no prescriptive payoff — use it as a teaching example for action titles and evidence-backed callouts, not for story architecture or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.15 and p.19 hint at brand plays but none crystallize a prescriptive next step
78
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Indonesia
“A competent single-chapter country brief with strong action titles and clean one-message slides, but it is analytical reporting rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative structure or closing.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends on p.7 with a negative funding stat and no recommendation, implication, or 'where to play' call to action