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 21 / 46
70
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Singapore
“A short analytical excerpt with strong insight-bearing titles on the data slides but no Complication or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ p.2 'Country overview' is a pure topic label — the 90% digital-payments stat buried in the callout is the actual headline and should replace the title.
70
title quality
2011 China Luxury Market Study
“A competent analytical build-up with strong data-rich action titles, but it ends on a topic-label 'Implications' slide instead of a recommendation — use the middle analytical slides (p.4, p.7, p.9) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No opening hook or stakes — the deck starts with rankings (p.3) rather than a governing question or tension
70
title quality
Digital Consumer Trends 2023
“A well-executed annual trends report with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc and no recommendation - use its title craft and callout discipline as a teaching example, not its structure.”
↓ No resolution act - deck ends on cost-of-living data (p.43) and a 'visit our hub' card (p.44), with zero recommendation or so-what
70
title quality
AI in financial reporting and audit
“A competent KPMG thought-leadership deck with a real narrative spine and several strong action titles, but the analytical middle is over-built and the close under-delivers — useful as a partial exemplar of answer-first openings (p.4-5) and tension-then-resolution (p.21→24), not as a Storymakers structural template.”
↓ Multiple slides default to figure-caption titles ('Figure 6…', 'Figure 9…', 'Figure 10…', 'Figure 11…') instead of insight statements
70
title quality
GCC 2022 Hospital Priorities: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent survey-findings readout with quantified action titles and a coherent three-pillar agenda, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'strategic implications' its own title promises — useful as an example of metric-led titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the deck title — closing on p.16 pain-points and p.17 'Connect with us' wastes the analytical setup
70
title quality
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019
“A solid government-style benchmarking study with strong action titles in the analytical core but a buried recommendation and a flat close — useful as a teaching example for benchmark slide titles and parallel case-study structure, not as a model for narrative arc or executive opening.”
↓ Multiple agenda slides (p.2, 24, 29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 73, 86, 99, 106, 110, 115, 119, 139, 150, 155, 171, 177) fragment the narrative and waste pages
70
title quality
Responding to COVID-19: Addressing the economic impact of the crisis
“A solid analytical-diagnostic deck with a memorable 4R framework, but the recommendation half hedges and the closing evaporates — use the diagnosis section (p.6-10) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ Closing collapses to a one-word 'Conclusion' (p.32) with no prioritized recommendation or next-step ask — fatal for a leader-facing deck
70
title quality
The Quantum Technology Monitor December 2020
“A competent state-of-the-market monitor with strong declarative analytical titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — use the middle slides as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis on slides 1-3 — the reader has to wait until p.4 to learn the deck's point of view
70
title quality
Global Health Partnerships Stop TB
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic-and-design deck with strong analytical action titles inside each chapter, but structurally a topic dump organized by team rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for KPI-tree slides (p.19-23) and pull-quote callouts, not for overall arc.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening flows straight from context (p.3) into approach/phasing (p.5) without telling the audience the answer
70
title quality
Private Sector Partnership Learnings
“A solid mid-tier 2011 McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong action titles in the middle and a recognizable SCQA spine, but it buries the thesis in act one and fizzles into a generic 'In summary' close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and case-evidence ladders, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages; the actual argument ('viable PPP models require X and Y') is delayed to p.4
70
title quality
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
70
title quality
Digital Luxury Experience
“A solid mid-tier consulting deck with a clean three-pillar frame and strong analytical titles in the Experience section, but it opens slowly, under-delivers on Enterprise/E-future, and closes without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the middle, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the first five pages — the thesis is deferred until p.6 and never crisply stated
70
title quality
GenAI Norway Productivity
“A high-quality analytical research report with exemplary action-title craft in the main body but no consultative resolution — use p.8-p.16 as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and quantified build-up, not as a model for a full Storymakers SCQA arc.”
↓ No call to action or recommendation slide — deck ends mid-appendix on p.26 (Risk & Legal case study)
70
title quality
Global Banking Annual Review 2023 Nordics
“A solid analytical landscape brief with strong quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the picture' without a recommendation — use p.2 and p.7 as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or so-what slide — p.8 ends on a data table about headwinds, not a call to action
70
title quality
Responding to Covid-19 (2021)
“A competent COVID-19 reference almanac with strong action titles and clear callouts, but it lacks an SCQA frame and ends in a marketing CTA — useful as a teaching example for action-title and callout craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA setup in the opening: p.1-3 are cover/intro/TOC and p.6 is a generic 'summary facts' page rather than a thesis
70
title quality
The Way back home? International consumer study on globalization in consumer & home electronics
“Competent survey-readout deck with answer-first instincts and mostly-declarative titles, but the conclusion is a meta-label rather than a recommendation — useful as a mid-tier example of action-title hygiene, not as a Storymakers exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ Duplicate / recycled titles on p.5 and p.6 (identical 'Higher for male, young, highly educated...') signals careless authoring
70
title quality
PwC’s 24th Annual Global CEO Survey
“A solid annual-survey communication piece with strong data-driven titles in the middle, but it is a thematic tour rather than a Storymakers-grade narrative — useful as a reference for action-title craft on data slides, not as an exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution or recommendation slide — the cover promises 'a leadership agenda to take on tomorrow' but the body never delivers an agenda; p.17 closes with reflection, not action
70
title quality
Redrawing the lines: FinTech’s growing influence on Financial Services
“A competent industry-trend report with strong quantified hooks and several insight-bearing titles, but it ends in observation rather than action — use slides 5, 6, and 12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ p.3 'Introduction' and p.11 'Banking, Insurance, Transactions and Payments Services' are pure topic labels with no insight — wasted real estate
70
title quality
Risk in review Managing risk from the front line
“Solid PwC thought-leadership deck with a real S->C->A->R spine and a clear thesis, but undermined by repetitive mid-deck benchmarks and topic-label section headers - useful as a teaching example for thesis-driven evidence stacking, not for crisp MECE pillaring or memorable closes.”
↓ Several adjacent slides repeat the same Front-Liner-vs-others benchmark structure (p.12, p.13, p.16, p.18) without escalating insight
70
title quality
23rd Global CEO Survey
“A credible thought-leadership report with a strong thesis-led opening and clean analytical action titles, but it stalls at 'Analysis' and never delivers a 'Resolution' — useful as a teaching example for opening + insight titling, not for full SCQA closure.”
↓ Multiple slides use the running header '23rd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the displayed title (p.21, p.26, p.28, p.30, p.33, p.37, p.49) — title slots wasted
70
title quality
Bike Sharing 5.0
“Solid analytical industry study with metric-rich declarative titles, but it is a Roland Berger 'overview' rather than a Storymakers argument - useful as an example of clean data titling, not as a model for opening hooks, MECE pillars, or recommendation closes.”
↓ p.2 'executive summary' restates the deck's purpose ('this study provides a comprehensive overview') instead of leading with the answer - a Storymakers cardinal sin
70
title quality
Innovation in logistics: advanced pooling and robotization
“An analytically credible but structurally loose point-of-view deck — use its quantified action titles (p.12, p.16, p.19) as a teaching example, but not its overall arc, which promises a 3-pillar framework and delivers a single-pillar essay.”
↓ Middle act drift — pp.7-11 jump from Russia (p.7) to platform success factors (p.8) to a 5-cluster business-model framework (p.9) to a repeat of the '3 areas' slide (p.10) to 'Big 3 facts' (p.11), with no MECE thread
70
title quality
Retail Banking Evolution in the Age of AI
“Solid analytical middle with quantified action titles, but the deck buries its thesis at the front and dissolves into 'Thank you' at the back — use p.5/p.7/p.12 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — the answer ('invest in AI fundamentals now') is never stated in the first 3 pages, forcing the audience to assemble it themselves
70
title quality
The Next Gen Index Millennials and Gen Z in the US
“A data-driven trend report with strong metric-anchored titles but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title hygiene, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — closes on a context slide (p.17) that restates a generic premise instead of resolving