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 25 / 46
68
title quality
Barclays Bank PLC FY24 Client Information
“A credit-investor fact pack with solid evidence and a few strong action titles, but no narrative spine — useful as a reference artefact, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA arc — the deck has a Situation (p.2) but no Complication, Question, or Answer; it is a reference document, not a narrative
68
title quality
20230215 Barclays FY22 Results Presentation
“A thesis-first bank earnings deck with strong action titles in the core build but no complication, no MECE spine, and a non-existent close — use the title-writing in p.6-11 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution slide — p.21 'Outlook' is a topic label, not a commitment or recommendation
68
title quality
Barclays H12023 Results Presentation
“Competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and disciplined main-body action titles, but it has no real story arc, a dead 'Outlook' close, and a topic-labelled appendix — use pp3-24 as a teaching example of metric-anchored action titles, not as a Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Dead close: p25 'Outlook' is a bare topic label with no recommendation, no ask, no memorable line — the deck whimpers into the appendix
68
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2024 Fixed Income Call
“A competent fixed-income investor update with disciplined action titles in the main deck, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is only useful for teaching opening-thesis clarity and quantified callouts — not narrative arc, pillar structure, or closing.”
↓ No section dividers or pillar structure across 14 main-deck slides — p4 through p13 is a flat run of 'financial_analysis' types with no MECE grouping
68
title quality
id19 growth in wealth management
“A competent investor-day update with strong quantified middle-section analytics but a stapled three-division structure, generic dividers and summaries, and no opening thesis or closing ask — useful as a teaching example of good action-title writing in the analytical core, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — slides 1–4 are cover, disclaimer, divider, and bullet highlights; the audience never gets a single-slide answer up front
66
title quality
Conquering the next value frontier in private equity
“A competent market-shaping POV with strong data slides and an early thesis, but the closing recommendations are fragmented and title discipline is uneven — useful as a teaching example for action-title-on-data-slide patterns, not as a whole-deck Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slides 4-8 re-establish context after slide 3 already delivered the headline, diluting momentum in the opening act
66
title quality
Transforming the Industry that transformed the World: 01 Shift to as-a-serice
“A disciplined, template-driven thought-leadership deck with strong per-pillar rhythm but a flat overall arc and no synthesis close - use its section architecture and case-led pillar pattern as a teaching example, not its opening or ending.”
↓ No closing synthesis - deck ends inside pillar #5 (p.29) then jumps to survey-method appendix (p.30), leaving five imperatives un-prioritized and no CTA
66
title quality
Work, workforce, workers Reinvented in the age of generative AI
“A solid thought-leadership report with a genuine SCQA backbone and a MECE four-accelerator resolution, but it reads more like a polished briefing than a Storymakers exemplar - use its section architecture as a teaching case, not its action titles or its missing close.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide - deck ends on an inspirational quote (p.42) then drops straight into appendices
66
title quality
Victorias Creative and Cultural Economy Fact Pack
“A well-scaffolded BCG fact pack with disciplined quantified titles and clean MECE pillars, but it ends on a question list instead of a recommendation — use the data chapters (p.12-22, p.39-51) as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No clear recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends on p.57 'Questions to be answered' and then flows into appendix, which is a fact-pack tell, not a consulting answer
66
title quality
COVID-19: Briefing Note
“A textbook example of MECE pillar architecture (the 5 Horizons) wrapped around a weak opening label and a closing that trails into appendix dashboards — use it to teach framework structure and section dividers, not narrative landing.”
↓ Closing collapses: ends with regional KPI dashboards (p51-54) and References rather than a recommendation or so-what slide
66
title quality
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
“A rigorous, MECE-disciplined UK government-policy advisory deck with an admirably explicit recommendation thread - use the numbered-pillars structure (10 practicalities, 8 options) and the recommendation->timeline close as Storymakers teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which buries the rail-industry context in an end-of-deck appendix and opens too slowly to surface the thesis.”
↓ Background-on-the-industry section (p.134-170, 37 slides) sits at the END rather than the front, so context that should have set up the stakes instead trails the recommendation and dilutes the close
66
title quality
Defense disrupted: New players, new pressures, new possibilities
“A competently structured Accenture thought-leadership report with a clean four-act story and a strong closing call to action - useful as a teaching example for section architecture and audience-segmented recommendations, but its delayed thesis and figure-caption titles keep it out of Storymakers-exemplar territory.”
↓ Figure captions used as page titles on p.18 and p.22 - abdicates the action-title discipline exactly where data is presented
66
title quality
Global & Entertainment Media Outlook 2021-2025
“A solid annual-outlook reference deck with disciplined action titles on data pages, but the architecture is a topic dump rather than an argument — use the macro slides (p.12-p.30) as a teaching example for insight-bearing chart titles, not the deck-level structure.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — slides 1-7 are all methodology and credentialing, so a reader has to wait until p.9 to see the headline 'Resetting expectations, refocusing inward, recharging growth'.
66
title quality
Investor Day Presentation 140623 FINAL
“A disciplined, well-structured investor-relations deck with strong metric-anchored action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis at the open and dissolves into a topic label and dial-in numbers at the close — useful as a teaching example for the Growth Plan vertical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Opening defers the thesis: takes through p7 to land 'Raison d'Être' and through p17 to articulate the client-trust proof point — no answer-first slide in the first three pages.
66
title quality
barclays ceo energy power conference 2018
“A competent investor-conference deck with pockets of strong Storymakers craft (action titles p.6/p.7/p.14, quantified callouts p.9-p.13) but no SCQA spine and a topic-label closing — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening delays the thesis: disclaimer (p.2) + tagline (p.3) + framework stub (p.4) + identity (p.5) burn four slides before any insight
66
title quality
Barclays Q12023 FI Presentation
“Bank fixed-income IR deck with disciplined action titles in the performance core but no narrative spine and no closing ask — useful as a teaching example of declarative title-writing on financial slides, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends at ESG ratings (p.48) and an appendix (p.49-51) with zero recap, recommendation, or call to action for FI investors
66
title quality
Client Creditor Overview August 2023
“A competent creditor-update deck with disciplined action titles in the first two sections but a noun-label Section 3 and no closing — use pp.5-19 as a teaching example of action titling, not the overall arc.”
↓ Section 3 (pp.21-27) abandons action-title discipline — slides titled 'Net balance sheet', 'Funding and liquidity', 'NIM', 'MREL/TLAC requirements', 'Sustainability' are noun-labels, not insights
66
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q4 2023 Fixed Income Call
“Investor earnings disclosure — not a consulting deck — with strong action-title discipline in the main section but no SCQA arc and a collapsed close; use p.2-15 titles as a teaching example for declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc — there is no Complication slide framing rate risk, CRE exposure, or cost pressure as the tension the deck resolves
66
title quality
csg investor day 2016 sru
“A competent investor-day progress report with several strong metric-led titles, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar — it lacks SCQA setup and pillar structure, so use individual action titles (p4, p8, p11) as teaching examples rather than the deck's architecture.”
↓ No Situation/Complication setup — the deck never explicitly frames why the SRU story matters before diving into metrics
65
title quality
Pulse of Change Index
“A well-titled survey-findings summary with a strong analytical core but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for action titles and quantified hooks, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on a data point (p.10) and methodology (p.11), with zero 'what to do about it' recommendation
65
title quality
Secret of Transformations
“A solid McKinsey teaching/keynote deck with strong quantified evidence and a recognizable arc, but the interrogative titles, mid-deck survey detour, and missing recommendation make it a useful exemplar for analytical build-up — not for Storymakers narrative discipline.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Survey for the audience' slides (p.8-13) interrupt the narrative and look like a workshop artifact, not a deck
65
title quality
Global Top 100 companies 2023
“A competent annual benchmarking publication with strong analytical action titles in the middle, but it is a data report — not a Storymakers narrative — because it has no complication, no recommendation, and dissolves into ranking tables; use slides 5-8 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never asks 'so what should leaders do?' and ends in ranking tables (p.17-21)
65
title quality
Presentation to Regional Economic Prosperity Management Board
“A solid diagnostic mid-section bookended by a generic opening and a missing close — useful as a teaching example for action-title chains (slides 5-7), not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative arc.”
↓ No recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends at a projection (p.10) with no 'therefore' for the Management Board
65
title quality
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely