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
146 matching · page 3 / 7
74
title quality
Rail supply digitization
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with disciplined action titles and a visible four-act spine, but it diagnoses without prescribing and ends as a Pathfinder sales pitch — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for closing a story.”
↓ Closing collapses into a product pitch: p.33-36 sell the Digital Pathfinder rather than synthesize survey takeaways into a recommendation
74
title quality
Trends in the truck & trailer market
“A well-structured analytical market study with strong quantified titles and a clear MECE framework, but it stops at 'here is what we found' rather than 'here is what to do' - useful as a research-deck exemplar, weaker as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No genuine recommendation or 'so what' act - p.49 is the only slide tagged 'recommend' and it offers a generic capability statement rather than client actions
74
title quality
Global Sustainability Study 2023 Webinar
“A solid webinar-format thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles and a clean problem-evidence flow, but the recommendation framework is buried at the end and the section dividers repeat a slogan instead of naming MECE pillars — use the analytical middle (p.14-20) as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Slides 2 and 3 are near-duplicate definitional slides, wasting two of the first three pages on terminology before any stakes are set
74
title quality
Generative AI: A boost for Operations
“A competent webinar deck with strong action titles and a clean close, but the four repeated agendas and question-style opener make it a useful teaching example for closing CTAs and case-study integration rather than a Storymakers exemplar of a single S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Four repeated 'Today's agenda' slides (p.3, 10, 15, 25) bloat the deck and signal a stitched-together webinar rather than a single argument
74
title quality
Blueprint for Advancing Metabolic Health
“Solid McKinsey white paper with a clean SCQA spine and one exemplary action-title slide (p.7), but the recommendation is buried and the deck trails off into quotes - useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Closing collapses: p.17 'Time to put it all together' is the recommendation slide but its title is generic and there is no explicit ask, owner, or next step.
74
title quality
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
74
title quality
Outlook on the automotive software and electronics market through 2030
“A competent McKinsey market-outlook brief with strong action titles and an answer-first opener, but it lacks tension and a concrete recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.9 closes with a generic 'Conclusion' topic label and an exhortation rather than a prioritized recommendation or next-step list
74
title quality
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title
74
title quality
goldman sachs may 2021
“A competent IR/earnings presentation with above-average action titles, but structurally a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative design.”
↓ No Situation→Complication setup: jumps from sustainability theme (p.3-10) straight into Q1 results (p.11) with no bridging tension
74
title quality
barclays americas select franchise conference final 5 8 24
“Competent investor-relations deck with a clear recommendation and solid peer-benchmark backbone, but missing the Complication and MECE pillar framing that would make it a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for action titles and recommendation closes, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No 'Complication' — the deck never names a challenge, question, or investor objection, so Analysis reads as capability showcase rather than argument
74
title quality
EFX+ +Barclays+Credit+Bureau+Day+Presentation+2023
“A respectable investor-day deck with strong KPI-driven action titles but a broken ending and missing pillar structure — use slides 7 and 13 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Closing is broken: filler slide (p.10) + 'Appendix' divider (p.11) precede the real key-takeaways (p.12) and headwind chart (p.13), so the deck ends without a landing
74
title quality
Client Creditor Overview Q3 2023 incl S&P update
“A competent IR/creditor update with strong action titles up front but a topic-dump credit-risk section and no real close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and MECE dividers in the first half, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ Creditor section (p.18–27) abandons action titles for topic labels — 'Current ratings', 'Net balance sheet', 'Derivatives bridge' — losing the insight-bearing voice
72
title quality
The next billion consumers
“A solid thought-leadership deck with a strong quantified opening and clean segmentation, but the recommendation framework is under-titled and the close rallies rather than resolves; useful as an exemplar for action-title data slides, not for closing arc.”
↓ Four-driver framework (p.27-38) is introduced via divider words ('Digital brain', 'Digital brawn') not insight titles, and each driver is explained through 'Ask:' prompts rather than imperatives
72
title quality
Global Restart Key Dynamics COVID-19
“A competent mid-crisis analytical update with strong insight-bearing chart titles but no story arc - use pp.10/16/24 as examples of action-title craft, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Duplicate section dividers (pp.6 and 30 both titled 'Key dynamics of the restart') collapse the pillar structure and signal no MECE spine
72
title quality
TSS Index 2025 France
“A solid analytical BCG index deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it buries the recommendation in one sparse slide and ends on a diagnostic rather than a close — use p.2-10 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Sector deep-dive titles (p.11 'Chemicals', p.12 'Transportation & Logistics', p.13 '2024 Performance Overview') are topic labels, not insights — loses the action-title thread built earlier
72
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2020 At full velocity: Resilient and racing ahead
“A solid industry research report with textbook action titles in its analytical core (p12–p60) but front-loaded with methodology, weak on an explicit recommendation, and tailing into a repetitive country appendix — use the sector-analysis middle as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ The country section (p95–127) is six near-identical mini-decks with repeated generic titles ('Exponential growth of digital consumers (who will stay)', 'Investment in Internet sector') — a topic-dump, not an insight-led close
72
title quality
Global Employee Survey – Key findings and implications for ICMIF
“A competent research-findings deck with strong mid-section action titles but a methodology-heavy opening and a non-committal close — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 6 slides on methodology before stating any insight — the thesis should lead, not follow the demographics
72
title quality
GenAI retail commercial banking
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative action titles in its analytical middle, but it reads as a research dump rather than an argument — use pp.8-18 as a teaching example for metric-anchored titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do about it' slide — the deck ends at p.22 with a use-case list and never resolves the S→C→A→R arc
72
title quality
Affordable Housing Challenge Blueprint
“A well-framed analytical deck with a clean MECE spine and quantified body slides, but it ends with a 'Thank you' instead of a recommendation and trails into a disorganized appendix — use the opening and four-lever build-up as a Storymakers exemplar, not the close.”
↓ Closing collapse: 'Thank you!' on p.35 is followed by 14 pages of appendix-style content (p.36-49) with no synthesis or call to action
72
title quality
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them
72
title quality
Reshaping NYCHA support functions
“Textbook BCG analytical-build deck — MECE pillars, disciplined benchmarking and a hammered $70M number — but it buries the answer for 26 slides and fizzles into a victory-lap close, so use the chapter structure and exec-summary cadence as a teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Buried thesis: 26 slides before the $70M number lands — opening sells the mandate, not the answer
72
title quality
Audio today 2022 How America listens
“A thesis-driven Nielsen marketing deck with strong action titles and a memorable opening hook, but it collapses into a data dump with no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck dies in data tables (p.14-15) and a boilerplate corporate slide (p.16)
72
title quality
PwC Women in Work 2025
“A solid PwC research-index publication with strong action titles in its scenario build (p.24-26) and a genuine productivity-angle hook, but it is structurally an analytical report, not a Storymakers deck — use slides 14 and 24-26 as exemplars for quantified action titles, never as a model for closings, because there is no recommendation and the document ends in an appendix.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in 50 pages — the deck ends on p.50 with a contact card immediately after the technical appendix
72
title quality
Healthcare Payer Service Providers, 2024
“A solid analyst-benchmarking report with strong action titles in its market-dynamics spine, but structurally it is a reference document — heavy on methodology up front, missing a recommendation at the back — so use pp.14-18 as a teaching example of declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Methodology is front-loaded across pp.4-12 (9 of first 12 slides), delaying the market insight until p.14