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 2 / 31
80
title quality
Client Creditor Overview Q4 2023
“A disciplined investor-relations deck with a clean two-act arc and metric-laden action titles — a good exemplar of answer-led analytical writing, but weak on Complication and pillar scaffolding, so use it to teach title craft and quantitative spine rather than full SCQA narrative design.”
↓ Weak 'Complication' act — p.13 'Adapting to a world in transition' is the only tension slide and it's abstract ('Ready to seize opportunities') rather than naming specific pressures
78
title quality
Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021
“A well-structured commissioned value-quantification report with a strong BLUF opening and MECE essential/enriches pillars, but it is an analytical exposition rather than a Storymakers exemplar - it teaches pillar design and quantified action titles, not how to close with a recommendation.”
↓ No Resolution / CTA: deck ends on a gaming case study (p.27) then methodology - missing a 'what this means for NBN Co / policy / retailers' closing slide
78
title quality
AI at Work: What People Are Saying
“A well-executed survey-findings deck with mostly strong action titles and a correctly placed recommendation slide, but it reads as an ordered sequence of findings rather than a Storymakers-style argument - useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a structural one.”
↓ No section dividers; 8 consecutive analyze_data slides (pp.4-11) flow without pillar signposting
78
title quality
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
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
Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference
“A tight 14-slide BCG press deck with strong declarative titles and a legible analytical arc, but it buries methodology up front and ends on a thesis restatement instead of a call to action: useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and paired contrast slides, not for closing structure.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide: the deck ends on a thesis restatement (p.13) followed by a brand cover, leaving the reader with a diagnosis but no prescription
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
Path to digital marketing maturity
“A tight, well-argued BCG report with strong action titles and a coherent S-C-A-R arc, but it buries its shock stat and closes on a generic 'Closing remarks' - use slides 5, 8, and 9 as teaching examples of insight titles, not the opener or closer.”
↓ Thesis buried on p.5 rather than stated in the first 2-3 slides - opener under-indexes on stakes
78
title quality
AI Radar 2025
“Competent BCG thought-leadership deck with a strong SCQA spine and mostly insight-bearing action titles — use the rhetorical-question dividers and data-led titles as teaching examples, but flag the buried lead and soft closing as what to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 75/25 gap on p.6 should be slide 2 or 3, not page six
78
title quality
AI at Work 2025
“A disciplined survey-insights deck with strong contrast-driven action titles and clean block architecture — use p.4-20 as a teaching example of divider + action-title craft, but do not cite the closing as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.26 'Strategic imperatives for leaders' is a topic label where the deck's strongest action title should live — the close under-delivers on the setup
78
title quality
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide
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
Altagamma 2018 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor
“A competent market-monitor deck with strong numeric action titles and a real recommendation, but the opening buries the thesis and the pillar structure is asymmetric — use its action-title discipline as a teaching example, not its overall arc.”
↓ p.44 repeats p.8's title 'LUXURY IN 2025 WILL BE A DIFFERENT PLACE' verbatim as the deck approaches closure — feels like a recycled placeholder rather than a summative insight
78
title quality
EY Work Reimagined 2022 Survey
“A competently sequenced survey-findings deck with strong analytical action titles but a weak recommendation and synthesis - use the middle (p.5-p.10) as a teaching example of title-writing, not the opening or close.”
↓ Recommendation slide p.11 is phrased as a question instead of a declarative ask, diluting the punch of the deck's 'so what'
78
title quality
Perspectives on US Healthcare Inflation Insights from L.E.K. Consulting
“A competent analytical perspective piece with strong action titles and a clean stakeholder-cut recommendation block, but missing the SCQA opening and synthesizing close that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — use p.4/p.6/p.9-11 as title-writing examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA setup: the deck jumps from agenda (p.2) straight to a data observation (p.3) with no stated question, stakes, or hypothesis
78
title quality
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality industry monitor with strong action-titled charts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it teaches slide craft (declarative titles, parallel sub-structures) rather than narrative architecture — use individual slides as examples, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next moves' slide — the deck ends at p.50 on a data point, then methodology
78
title quality
Global Growth Development Context
“A solid context-setting trend pack with strong quantified action titles, but it is a Setup-only deck with no Analysis or Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — p.11 frames the problem and the deck ends, leaving the audience with tension and no answer
78
title quality
Mining Investment Fragile Conflict
“Compact 8-page executive brief with a coherent S→C→A→R spine and strong numeric titles, but it asks questions instead of leading with the answer and ends on a metaphor rather than a decision — useful as a short-form arc example, not as an opening or closing exemplar.”
↓ P.2 'Central questions' delays the thesis — opening should lead with the answer, not the questions
78
title quality
Automated Trucks The next big disruptor in the automotive industry?
“Solid analytical Roland Berger short-version with strong quantified action titles in the economics section, but it withholds the thesis up front and dribbles out the recommendation — use p.11-15 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No leading 'answer slide' — the core recommendation is never stated in the first 3 pages; p.2 'THE BIG 3' withholds rather than reveals
78
title quality
Bike Sharing 4.0
“A competent thought-leadership deck with above-average action titles and a real recommendation, but the missing six-factor scaffolding and absent section dividers keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action-title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ The 'six factors' promised on p.3 are never explicitly enumerated or used as section dividers, so the analytical core (p.19-26) loses MECE clarity
78
title quality
Global Automotive Study 2023
“A well-titled, evidence-rich research-report deck whose per-slide craft is exemplary but whose overall arc is a parallel-themed survey rather than a Storymakers SCQA build — use the action titles and per-section 'How to act?' pattern as teaching examples, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — pages 1-5 are admin/methodology before the first insight on p.6
78
title quality
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
78
title quality
Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Spring 2019
“A solid analytical market-update deck with above-average action titles and a real attempt at tension on p.9-10, but it has no recommendation act and ends in administrative pages — useful as an example of strong title craft, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends with team bios, contacts, methodology and a logo (p.11-15)