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 24 / 46
68
title quality
Executive Compensation at Deloitte Delivering global insight and expertise
“A competent capabilities brochure with a few strong benchmarking action titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is mid-tier — useful to teach title-writing in the middle section, not to teach narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No complication or 'so what' — the deck presents market facts (p.3-7) without telling the reader why these trends threaten or pressure them
68
title quality
Achieving Supply Chain Resilience in a Volatile World
“A tight, disciplined executive perspective with a recognizable S→C→A→R arc, but the recommendation fizzles — useful as a teaching example for compact narrative structure, not for how to land a close.”
↓ p.9 recommendation title ends in a colon ('...policies that:') — the deck's punchline is effectively a setup line, not a resolution
68
title quality
Prefabricated housing market in Central and Northern Europe – Overview of market trends and development
“A well-organised, MECE sector outlook with solid action titles on body slides but no opening hook and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and pillar consistency, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Nine 'Key Takeaways' slides reuse the same non-insight title instead of stating the takeaway in the headline
68
title quality
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage
“A meticulous Kearney FactBook with strong action titles and MECE pillars but no narrative resolution - use slides 4, 14, 17 and 50 as exemplars of declarative titling, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers archetype.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide - the deck ends on patent counts (p.147-148) and a list of active companies (p.149) rather than 'what should the reader do'
68
title quality
Driving innovation at scale
“A McKinsey board-education deck with strong analytical mid-section and headline-grade data points, but it buries its recommendation in the appendix and opens with anecdote — use the fear-culture build (p.18–22) and the data-driven titles as exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ The recommendation is missing from the main body — p.24 closes on an open question, and the most persuasive numbers (2.4x profit on p.31, 97% outperformance on p.27, iQ CTA on p.32) are dumped into the appendix.
68
title quality
The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it
“Competent McKinsey explainer that opens well and uses number-led titles, but it is an analytical breakdown not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of clean BLUF openings and quantified action titles, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'what this means for you' slide — deck jumps from STEM funding (p.7) straight to author bios (p.8).
68
title quality
Payment providers
“A competent HFS/Deloitte analyst report with genuinely strong action titles in its analytical middle, but structurally it's a topic-dump with a buried thesis and no recommendation — use slides 17/20/24/25 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ Thesis is buried — executive summary sits at p.16/34, so a reader skimming the first third never meets the argument
68
title quality
Wealth and asset management 4.0
“A research-rich, well-evidenced industry report with strong action titles in the middle acts, but it buries its thesis under an 'Introduction' label and fails to land a specific recommendation across four identically-titled 'Calls to action' slides — use the mid-deck analytical titling as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ The opening buries the thesis — p.2 is titled 'Introduction' (a topic label), and the actual product-to-customer-centric argument only surfaces in the callout, not the title
68
title quality
Deloitte 2019 Industry 4.0 Readiness Survey
“A tidy four-pillar benchmark excerpt with solid action titles in the middle but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — useful as a teaching example of parallel-pillar analytical slides, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or «so what» slide — the deck ends on Methodology (p.8) with zero call to action
68
title quality
global advisor earth day perils of perception environment gb
“A competent survey-results deck with a strong belief-vs-reality device and a clean three-pillar spine, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title-as-finding pairings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck stops analyzing on p.26 and never tells the audience what to do, recommend, or believe differently
68
title quality
Introduction to Ipsos
“A competent corporate-intro deck with declarative titles and hard numbers, but structurally a topic tour without SCQA tension or a closing ask — use slides 5, 8, and 14 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ Slides 10 and 11 carry near-duplicate titles ('OUR STRATEGY BEING AT THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA' / 'OUR STRATEGY BEING THE HEART OF SCIENCE AND DATA') — wasted real estate and a signal of weak editing
68
title quality
Ipsos Global Views on AI and Disinformation full report
“A well-titled Ipsos data-release deck with solid declarative findings but no SCQA arc or recommendation — useful as an exemplar of headline-stat action titles, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No 'So what?' — deck ends at p.6 with a data point, skipping any recommendation, implication, or next step
68
title quality
cx global insights 2025 ipsos sneak peek
“A credible research teaser with strong stat-driven action titles in the middle, but it opens ceremonially and ends on a contact card — use p.5-p.9 as a teaching example of data-led titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.12 'For more information' substitutes a contact card for a call to action
68
title quality
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
68
title quality
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
68
title quality
ey mobility consumer index mci 2022 study
“A solid annual-research findings deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it is an analytical report rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends at p10 'Concerns' + p11 demographics with no recommendation, implication, or call to action
68
title quality
IMD Morgan Stanley Final 13 June 2019
“Competent regional-bank investor deck with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it never states a Complication and ends in disclaimers — useful as an exemplar of pillar architecture and peer-benchmark evidence, not as a full SCQA narrative or strong close.”
↓ No Complication: deck shows strengths without naming a tension or risk, so there is nothing for the recommendation to resolve
68
title quality
ey energy and resources transition acceleration
“A well-structured EY industry-trends deck with a clean four-act spine and strong quantitative backbone, but it over-invests in analysis and under-invests in the recommendation, making it a good teaching example for SCQA acts and metric-anchored body slides — not for landing a call to action.”
↓ Recommendation act is only 3 substantive slides (pp. 44-46) versus ~25 slides of analysis — the 'so what' is buried under the 'what'
68
title quality
ey people leaders forum 2025 presentations day1
“A disciplined, MECE-structured keynote with strong metric-bearing analytical titles, but it opens slowly and ends in a dinner invitation rather than a recommendation — use the three-pillar architecture and p.20-p.22 titles as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — closing flow p.28→p.29→p.30 dissolves into 'Seated dinner and networking'
68
title quality
Wilton Park Policy Brief 17102024
“A competent policy-brief structure with a disciplined before/after analytical spine and one genuinely memorable number, but front-matter-heavy opening and a soft, appendix-trailing close make it a good teaching example of analytical rigor rather than of Storymakers narrative craft.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: 4 of the first 5 slides are front-matter or generically-titled summary; no page in the first third states the recommendation
68
title quality
Goldman Sachs Presentation Final
“A competent investor-conference deck with a strong analytical mid-section but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — use slides 7-12 as a mini exemplar of action-title + callout discipline, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides; p.3 'U.S. Bancorp' is a topic label where a point-of-view slide should be
68
title quality
Newmark May 2023 FI Conference Presentation Vf Final
“A competent fixed-income IR deck with several exemplary action titles in its middle third, but structurally it is a data walk rather than a Storymakers story — use slides 11, 14, 16, and 19 as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are pure front matter; the investable thesis ('when markets normalize we exceed peak revenues') is hidden on p.13 rather than stated on p.3 or p.4
68
title quality
PR Barclays Presentation 9.06.22 FINAL Update
“A competent investor-pitch deck with rigorous quantitative evidence but a weak narrative scaffold — useful as an example of strong financial pillars and supporting callouts, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening, MECE structure, or closing.”
↓ No explicit thesis slide in the first 3 pages — the merger rationale is buried at p6 behind disclaimers and bios
68
title quality
barclays global credit bureau forum v30
“Competent investor-day roadshow with strong slide-level quantified titles inside each segment, but no overarching narrative spine or closing synthesis — use the mid-section analytical build-ups (Ascend p.26, Verify p.29–30, Serasa p.50–60) as teaching examples of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck leads with agenda/CFO Q&A instead of an answer-first insight