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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on title quality
- 86 2024 Global Investor Survey BCG · 2024
- 86 What if Germany becomes the sick man of Europe again? RolandBerger · 2023
- 86 ey global economic outlook july 2023 MorganStanley · 2023
- 85 March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge Accenture · 2023
- 85 ecb.forumcentbankpub2024 Hatzius presentation.en GoldmanSachs · 2024
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A data-rich thought-leadership update with genuinely strong action titles, but structurally not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides p2-p9 as a teaching example for declarative titling, not as a model for deck architecture.” — AlvarezMarsal, 2024
- “Solid BCG executive-perspectives piece with excellent imperative-led action titles and a clean recommendation block, but the 10-slide context run-up, absent MECE dividers, and whimpering close-into-appendix make it a better teaching example for title craft than for overall Storymakers arc.” — BCG, 2022
- “Lead-gen publication deck with unusually strong action titles and a clean analytical middle, but a hollow recommendation act — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for narrative resolution.” — LEK, 2024
- “A well-titled McKinsey research briefing with a clean setup and a framework promise on p.4, but it is an S-C-A deck with the R amputated — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers arc.” — McKinsey, 2020
- “An analytically rigorous, answer-first Roland Berger argument with excellent declarative titles and a clean S→C→A pillar structure, but it stops at impact and never delivers the Resolution — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified build-up, not for how to close a deck.” — RolandBerger, 2017
- “A well-titled, MECE-disciplined trend report that excels as a teaching example for declarative action titles but reads as an analytical compendium rather than a story — strong middle, weak tension and weak close.” — RolandBerger, 2018
- “A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.” — misc, 2021
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 20 / 46
72
title quality
2019 cb investor day ba56d0e8
“A polished investor-day capabilities deck with strong quantitative titles but no real tension or resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for SCQA arc construction.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names a problem, competitor threat, or 'so what changes' moment
72
title quality
cb q1 2024 ie outlook report
“A competent JPM market-outlook brief with strong individual action titles but no narrative resolution — use slides 4, 6, 8 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on p.14 with an unresolved question and then a disclaimer
72
title quality
2019 am investor day ba56d0e8
“A competent investor-day strategy showcase with a clear three-pillar spine and quantified proof, but it skips the Complication and fumbles the close — useful as an exemplar of pillar tagging and metric-led titles, not of full SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never names a problem, threat, or 'why now', so it is proof without provocation
72
title quality
2022 asset wealth management investor day
“A solid investor-day analytical build with a memorable five-pillar spine, but it skips the complication act and ends on KPIs rather than a commitment — use p.7-11 as a teaching example of MECE pillar structure, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck jumps from 'we're growing' (p.3-4) straight to 'here's how we'll keep growing' (p.5+) without naming the threat
72
title quality
20240220 Barclays FY2023 Results and Investor Update Presentation
“A disciplined IR/strategy hybrid with a genuine MECE pillar spine and mostly insight-bearing titles, but bloated by per-division template repetition and duplicate book-ends — use the FY23 results run (pp.4-24) and the SBMB framework as exemplars, not the 145-page whole.”
↓ 145 pages with heavy repetition — each division repeats the same SBMB template (e.g. pp.100-103, pp.108-114, pp.119-122), so momentum stalls after the first division
72
title quality
20240220 Barclays FY2023 FI Call Slides
“A competent IR deck with a strong answer-first opening and quantified analytical spine, but it lacks a complication act and trails into Q&A without a closing recommendation — use p.3-8 and p.13-14 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation/next-steps slide — deck ends at p.19 rating target, then Q&A/appendix/disclaimer, so the 'so what' never gets restated
72
title quality
Q4 FY 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent investor-relations earnings deck with strong action titles and a clean lead-with-the-answer opening, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for the title-craft of slides 7-17 — not the structure, which lacks pillars, complication, and is overwhelmed by a 29-slide appendix.”
↓ 63% of the deck (29/46) is appendix — narrative drowns in reference material
72
title quality
20190312 Deutsche Bank MIT Conference
“A competent investor deck with disciplined action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens with label slides and fades out into repeated 'Announced Acquisitions' tables — useful as a teaching example for quantified titles and three-pillar structure, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Three near-identical slide titles 'Announced Acquisitions' at p.33-35 — a cardinal Storymakers sin of topic-labeling over insight
72
title quality
11 20230302 SDD How we measure and drive success
“A competent investor-relations ESG talk deck with a coherent spine and one strong insight title on p4, but soft complication and closing acts make it a solid example of structural flow — not a Storymakers exemplar for narrative tension or memorable close.”
↓ No complication/tension slide early on — p2 establishes context but the deck skips straight to the framework on p3 without stating what problem this solves
72
title quality
02 20230302 SDD Strategy Outlook and Ambition for 2025
“A solid internal strategy-outlook deck with clean divisional MECE and a strong quantified ambition, but it buries the thesis and ends in a generic takeaways slide — useful as a teaching example for pillar structure, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis buried until p.8 — first four slides are mission/context with no hard number or stake
72
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q3 2023 Fixed Income Call
“A competent IR disclosure deck with above-average action titles in the first 14 slides, but it lacks SCQA tension, has no real closing ask, and is dominated by a topic-labelled appendix — useful as a reference for declarative titling, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No complication/tension act — the deck never names what's hard (rates, CRE, TLTRO repayments), so analytical slides like p.25–27 read as disclosure, not narrative payoff
72
title quality
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2025
“A competent investor/creditor update with a clean answer-first 9-slide narrative and a heavy reference appendix; use p.2-9 as a teaching example of concise IR storytelling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — reader cannot see the pillar structure of the argument
72
title quality
2022 strategy update
“A financially rigorous investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but front-matter bloat, a single weak section divider, and a duplicated strategic narrative make it an exemplar of analytical discipline — not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Five-slide front matter (p.1-5) including a duplicated cover delays the thesis and wastes the reader's attention budget
72
title quality
200917 Credit Suisse Basic Materials Conference
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong action titles and quantified proof points, but it advertises a 4-pillar framework it never follows and ends in a financial appendix instead of a recommendation — use its titles and case studies as teaching examples, not its overall structure.”
↓ No resolution slide — deck ends in financial dashboards (pp17-20) rather than a recommendation, next steps, or recap of the investment thesis
72
title quality
id18 utilizing technology
“A solid analytical investor-day deck with quantified action titles in the IT-spend and risk pillars, but weak opening, a repetitive client-journey middle, and no synthesized close — use the p.7-12 and p.42-43 sequences as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening (p.1-6) buries the thesis — no stakes, no SCQA setup, just cover + disclaimer + generic banner
71
title quality
WHAT THE FUTURE: INTELLIGENCE
“A well-titled, data-rich research magazine with a strong opening thesis and a hidden MECE framework — useful as an exemplar of declarative action titles and stat-driven hooks, but a poor structural model because the synthesis arrives late and the deck ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA close — deck dribbles into a 14-slide quote appendix (pp.43-56) and a contributors page rather than landing a 'so what'
71
title quality
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A competent survey-report deck with a real thesis and a landed recommendation, but structured as an analytical tour rather than a tight Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing in the motivation section (pp.14-17), not as a model for opening discipline or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis inside a 3-part executive summary (pp.5-7) instead of stating the answer on p.2 or p.3
70
title quality
Green by Default
“Well-structured Accenture thought-leadership report with clear MECE pillars and several sharp action titles — use the sectioning (p.15/20/25) and insight-title examples (p.4, p.5, p.10) as teaching exemplars, but flag the repeated generic recommendation titles and soft closing as common pitfalls to avoid.”
↓ Three identical generic titles 'Practical considerations to help your business make a start' on p.19, p.24, p.29 — insight-free and undifferentiated
70
title quality
Innovation Unleashed Building a culture that drives sustained growth
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership deck with a clear S-C-A-R spine and strong stake-setting numbers, but weakened by topic-label titles on pivot slides and a case-study run that doesn't map back to its own framework — useful as a teaching example of quantified stakes and paired CTA, not of action-title discipline.”
↓ p.4 quote slide ('Culture eats strategy for breakfast') is a cliché that breaks the momentum from the 82% stat on p.2 to the data on pp.5-7
70
title quality
Reinventing for resilience
“A solid analytical Accenture thought-leadership deck with strong action titles on its data pages and proprietary IP, but the SCQA arc is bottom-heavy: use the data slides (p7, p11, p14, p17) as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slide 18 is a verbatim duplicate of slide 17's headline — a wasted page that signals weak editorial discipline
70
title quality
The art of AI maturity Advancing from practice to performance North America
“A disciplined, well-architected thought-leadership deck whose five-recommendation 'How' section (p.20-28) is a clean Storymakers exemplar of imperative action titles, but the deck buries its answer for 15 pages and ends on theme rather than call-to-action — use the middle, not the opening or close, as a teaching reference.”
↓ No true call-to-action close — the deck ends on a thematic p.31 and an assessment figure (p.32) rather than an explicit 'next steps' recommendation slide
70
title quality
Thought you knew the Scope 3 issues in your supply chain? Think again.
“A well-structured thought-leadership report with a strong hook and a clean five-action closer, but its analytical middle leans on figure-label titles and its conclusion softens the punch - useful as a teaching example for SCQA pacing and imperative recommendation blocks, not for action-title discipline.”
↓ Figure/Table slides (p.9, p.10, p.12, p.13, p.17) use chart-label titles ('Figure 1: Distribution of upstream emissions by supplier tier') instead of action titles stating what the data proves
70
title quality
Port of LA Clean Truck Program
“A solid 2008 BCG business-case deck with a competent analytical spine and one exemplary action title at p.15, but the buried thesis and post-conclusion option dumps make it a teaching example for analytical rigor, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Structural misplacement: 'Agenda' divider at p.17 after the 'Conclusion' at p.16 inverts deck logic — option deep-dives (p.18-20) should precede, not follow, the recommendation
70
title quality
Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter
“Solid BCG explanatory brief with a coherent 'leapfrogging' throughline and strong US-China benchmarking, but structured as analytical build-up rather than a Storymakers story — thesis buried, dividers blank, recommendations absent — so use the market-sizing and leapfrogging sections as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the 'leapfrogging' answer doesn't arrive until p.25/26, and there is no upfront thesis slide summarizing the deck's point of view