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 31 / 46
58
title quality
Insurance reimagined 2025
“Competent thought-leadership white paper with a real arc and parallel recommendations, but it buries the answer and leans on topic-label titles — useful as a teaching example for the imperatives section (p.18-23), not for opening craft.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Where are we now?' (p.4-6) and a duplicate 'Five trends affecting the future of insurance' (p.7 and p.13) signal recycled topic labels rather than insight titles
58
title quality
Sustainability Study 2024
“A competently structured short-form thought-leadership brochure with a clear two-act spine and strong data callouts, but it under-delivers on its own 'four actions' promise and closes with a capabilities pitch rather than a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for callout-driven storytelling, not for action-title discipline or closing craft.”
↓ The 'four key actions' promised on p.12 do not appear as four parallel slides — only p.13 and p.14 are visible, so the MECE promise is broken
58
title quality
Better Processes for Data Analytics Insights
“A polished but structurally flat case-study catalog — useful as a sales sample bag, weak as a Storymakers exemplar; mine the quantified callouts for action-title rewrites, but do not use the deck's overall structure as a teaching reference.”
↓ No SCQA framing — p.2 'Our philosophy' is an aspirational statement, not a Situation/Complication that motivates the eight cases that follow
58
title quality
The economic and social impact of investment in the nbn network Methodology Report
“A credentialed methodology report with a clean two-pillar structure and strong quantitative spine, but it buries the answer and ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for sound MECE pillars, not for narrative arc or opening/closing craft.”
↓ No thesis up front: pages 1-7 are entirely scene-setting; the headline number a reader should remember is never stated in the opening
58
title quality
The Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brands Index
“A competently structured research-findings deck with two pockets of strong action-title craft (pp.21–24) but no SCQA arc, no answer-first opening, and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean chaptering and isolated action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No answer-first opening — five slides of cover/TOC/methodology before any finding (p.9 is the first insight)
58
title quality
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA
58
title quality
KPMG global tech report: Financial services insights
“A competently structured three-pillar thought-leadership report with a clean Analyze→Recommend rhythm, but more thematic survey than SCQA story — useful as an exemplar of pillar discipline, not of opening/closing craft.”
↓ No explicit complication slide — p.4 lists findings but does not crystallize the tension that motivates the report
58
title quality
Blueprint for success
“A well-scaffolded SCQA framework deck - clean four-pillar MECE structure and strong 92% opening hook - let down by topic-label pillar titles and a thin close; use the act structure and pillar rhythm as the teaching example, not the individual action titles.”
↓ Pillar titles are imperative topic labels, not insights - p17 '2. Manage diverse stakeholders' and p21 '3. Embrace ESG beyond compliance' tell the reader the category, not the finding
58
title quality
Rethinking the course to manufacturing’s future
“A competent Accenture thought-leadership deck with genuine MECE pillar discipline and a solid closing arc, but too many topic-label titles and a delayed thesis keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use its pillar structure and closing triplet as teaching material, not its opening.”
↓ Thesis is delayed: 3 front-matter slides plus 2 context slides mean the core claim isn't fully framed until p.5–7
58
title quality
Homeowner availability study
“A competent regulatory study with an excellent action-title stretch in section 04 and clean quantitative anchoring throughout, but it opens with topic labels and closes with 'considerations' instead of a recommendation — use the p.13–p.33 sequence as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.38–42 deliver 'KEY TAKEAWAYS' and four flavors of 'CONSIDERATIONS' but never say what Colorado should do
58
title quality
Pulse of Fintech H1’21
“A solid MECE market-intelligence report with disciplined numeric section dividers and several genuinely declarative action titles, but no SCQA arc and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for region/segment structure and insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative or close.”
↓ Repeated topic-label titles inside the analytical sections ('Global insights' pp.7/8/9/14; 'Fintech segments — Payments' pp.17/18; 'Regional insights — Americas' pp.35/36) waste page real-estate that should carry the chart's takeaway
58
title quality
KPMG global tech report 2024
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong stat-anchored mid-section titles and a real conclusion+CTA arc, but it organizes findings instead of telling a story — useful as an example of pillar discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis: p.1-5 are cover, TOC, foreword, methodology, and a teaser before the first insight slide at p.7
58
title quality
10 retailer investments for an uncertain future
“A solid topic catalog with sharp 'X, not Y' recommendation titles and disciplined evidence pairing, but it abdicates the prioritization question it poses — useful as a teaching example for declarative recommendation titles and SCQA openings, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing is a question, not an answer (p.43 'How would you prioritize these 10 areas') — for a deck about prioritization, refusing to prioritize is the central narrative failure
58
title quality
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“Competent short-form macro outlook with a textbook arc and two model action titles, but it buries the lead and asks rather than answers in the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for p.6-style titles, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening 3 slides (cover, outline, dashboard) bury the lead — no thesis stated in the first 5 pages
58
title quality
Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2017 The new luxury consumer
“A competent annual industry benchmark report with strong data and occasional insight-bearing titles, but structurally a topic-organized analytical dump with a buried thesis and an appendix close — use pp.13, 31, and 39 as teaching examples of good action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends on methodology/appendix/contacts (pp.47–52) with zero recommendation or 'so what' slide
58
title quality
Fueling the AI transformation: Four key actions powering widespread value from AI, right now.
“A competently structured Deloitte research report with a genuine MECE spine and flashes of strong action-title writing, but it withholds the thesis, under-delivers the close, and leans on topic-label placeholders — use its 'four actions' scaffold as a pillar exemplar, not its opening or closing craft.”
↓ Thesis is withheld: the executive summary (p.3) describes scope rather than stating the answer, forcing readers to p.6 to meet the central question
58
title quality
Customer Service Excellence 2022
“A competent Deloitte research report with a strong executive summary and several declarative insight titles, but it dissolves into topic-labelled deep-dives and has no recommendation slide — use slides 5-6, 15 and 24 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide before the team bio — closing (p.27-28) is two 'Deep-dive' appendix-style pages followed by 'Who we are'
58
title quality
Third-party governance and risk management The threats are real
“A data-rich Deloitte survey report with a clear diagnostic thesis ('execution gap') but no Resolution act and too many topic-label titles — use pp.22/26/28 as examples of good action titles, not the overall deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on technology analysis (p.35) then jumps straight to bios/contacts with zero recommendations or next-steps slide
58
title quality
ipsos populism report 2025
“A well-framed research report with a strong opening thesis that then devolves into an un-narrated data atlas and ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how action-title discipline collapses once you enter the evidence chapters, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on a spending data table (p.55) and methodology, with zero implications or recommendations
58
title quality
KEYS Environment Emergency
“A multi-presenter Ipsos webinar package with strong individual data points but no spine — useful as a source of stat callouts and the 'Shield/Sword/Standard' framework, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it ends in a case-study trail-off and contains a mid-deck thank-you slide.”
↓ Mid-deck 'THANK YOU' on p.29 followed by 30+ more slides reveals this is stitched-together speaker segments, not one narrative
58
title quality
Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025
“A competent Ipsos data-release brief with two genuinely insightful titles, but structurally a findings dump with no SCQA arc and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how strong individual insights get buried by a topic-led running order.”
↓ Slides 4–6 reuse the survey-question text verbatim as titles, abdicating the action-title discipline
58
title quality
G@ Earth Day 2021
“A well-opened research report with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it ends in a topic-labelled data dump with no recommendation — use p.2–3 and p.8–10 as teaching examples for hooks and insight titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication or call-to-action slide — deck ends with 'THANK YOU' (p.44) and 'ABOUT IPSOS' (p.45) after a disclaimer
58
title quality
Investor Presentation Deck
“A competent investor-relations positioning deck with a solid financial middle section but no complication, no recommendation, and titles that hide their numbers — useful as a 'callout-writing' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: eight context slides (p.3-10) stack positioning without ever naming a threat, gap, or decision the reader must make
58
title quality
modern retirement monthly report en
“A polished UBS client-education guidebook with strong MECE lifecycle pillars but weak SCQA narrative and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for framework-driven structure, not for Storymakers storytelling.”
↓ No SCQA arc — deck never frames a complication; it jumps from 'why' (p.4) to framework (p.5) to lifecycle education with no tension to resolve