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 33 / 46
55
title quality
Future-proof ad sales: The new transformation imperative
“Competent two-act transformation thesis with quantified stakes and a clear protect-now/pivot-next spine, but topic-label titles and bundled recommendations keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.11-15 as a pillar-divider teaching case, not the titling.”
↓ Figure-label titles like p.6 "FIGURE 2: Digital versus non-digital advertising spend" and p.8's 60-word run-on title waste prime real estate
55
title quality
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
55
title quality
The productivity push Powering the UK’s performance with five digital capabilities
“A well-structured Accenture thought-leadership piece with an exemplary MECE pillar section (p.14-30) but a marketing-style close — use the five-capability build as a teaching example of parallel pillar structure, not as a model for opening hooks or consultative recommendations.”
↓ Repetitive topic-label titles in the capability deep-dives ('Industry view', 'Capability in action' repeated 5x each) instead of slide-specific insights
55
title quality
2019 True-Luxury Global Consumer I nsight
“A data-rich BCG research readout with competent chart-level action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline on analytical slides, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what brands should do' slide — the deck ends at p.49 'THANK YOU' straight after a Made-in Italy chart
55
title quality
Syracuse University Diagnostic Report
“A credible Bain fact-base diagnostic with strong methodology framing but a sprawling middle and near-absent recommendation — use the setup (p.7-8) and two early insight titles (p.12-13) as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Buried thesis — no answer-first slide; the core tension (expense growth outpacing revenue) appears at p.12, not p.3
55
title quality
The Logistics Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent but inert market handbook with pockets of strong declarative titling in the regional KPI sections; use p.10/p.13/p.16 as action-title teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which lacks both a thesis and a close.”
↓ No thesis slide and no recommendation slide — 27 pages without a 'so what' makes this a reference document rather than a persuasive deck
55
title quality
IBV Research Report
“A solid three-pillar research report with the right analytical skeleton and a real recommendations close, but it buries its headline stat, under-uses section dividers, and leans on topic-label titles — teach the pillar structure, not the opening or the titling.”
↓ Headline stat (36% revenue/efficiency lift from analytics-led innovation) is buried on p.5 instead of driving the cover or exec summary
55
title quality
Agile Transformation
“A stat-rich KPMG survey report with a competent three-pillar diagnosis and good case-study cadence, but the thesis is buried at p.30, the close is a service pitch followed by 11 appendix pages, and pillars exist only in title prefixes — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored analytical builds, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ 11 of 42 pages (p.32-42) are appendix/country-background — over a quarter of the deck dumps undifferentiated country snapshots ('Background – Belgium', 'Background - Brazil', etc.) that read as raw survey output
55
title quality
2021 CEO Outlook
“A solid survey-summary deck that leads with the answer and closes with explicit actions, but mixed title quality and unlabeled pillars make it a useful teaching example of 'thesis upfront' rather than a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 'Trusted purpose' is reused as the title for both p.12 and p.13 — readers cannot tell the slides apart from the ToC
55
title quality
Breakthrough Brigade Innovation Growth
“A solid thought-leadership report with a real MECE recommendations spine, but its brand-heavy opening, descriptive figure titles, and toothless 'Summary' close make it a useful teaching example for analytical pillar structure rather than for Storymakers-grade hook-and-payoff narrative.”
↓ Five front-matter slides (pp.1-5) including duplicate 'Our thought leadership' dividers delay the thesis to p.7
55
title quality
Navigating payments matrix
“A well-researched thematic walkthrough of payments trends with a genuinely useful 4 Rs framework, but it reads more like a magazine feature than a tight Storymakers argument — use the framework slides (p.21-23) as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slides (p.24-28) drift into regional trends and quotes with no call-to-action — the deck fizzles
55
title quality
Challenges abound Ongoing crises call for a proactive approach
“A quarterly research bulletin with a punchy opening hook and quantified data, but no Resolution and recycled titles in the middle — useful as a teaching example of how a strong Situation/Complication can be wasted when the deck never returns to the 'call to action' it promises.”
↓ P.6, p.7, p.8 all carry the same recycled title 'Automotive Disruption Radar – Issue #7' instead of the actual insight (EV offer growing, AI investment up, mobility jobs surging) — the insight lives only in the callout
55
title quality
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
55
title quality
2022: a record year for MENA IPOs
“A competent EY-style market report with strong pull-quotes and a real underlying thesis (MENA decoupling), but structured as a geographic data tour rather than an argument — useful as a reference for headline-metric framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative construction.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.8–11) share the identical title 'MENA IPO performance for 2022 listed companies' — readers cannot distinguish them in a TOC or thumbnail view
55
title quality
2023 EU Wide EBA Stress Test Our First Glance at Results
“A competent analyst briefing with a strong BLUF opening and one memorable thesis ('P2G drives winners and losers'), but it buries action titles in callouts and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example for opening slides and benchmarking, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides (p.6–12) reuse '1. EBA Stress Test Impacts' as the on-slide title — the action-title work has been pushed into the callout layer, defeating skim-readability
55
title quality
API Trends
“A short trend-briefing deck with decent data points but no narrative spine — useful as a counter-example showing how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act flatten a story into a list.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1-3 establish context but never name a Complication or Question, so the audience has no reason to lean in
55
title quality
THE IPSOS REPUTATION COUNCIL
“A well-evidenced research-anthology report with strong stat-anchored slides but no overall narrative spine or closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title discipline on individual data slides (p.9, p.14), not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or CTA — deck ends on a Quickfire data slide (p.26) and three appendix pages, breaking Storymakers' resolution requirement
55
title quality
KPMG global AI in finance report
“A competent thought-leadership research report with a clean four-pillar spine and good metric discipline, but it reads as an analytical survey rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as an example of section architecture and metric-anchored slides, not of action-title craft or SCQA opening.”
↓ No SCQA setup — the deck never frames a complication or burning question before diving into framework (p.5) and benefits (p.8)
55
title quality
Capturing opportunities today, reinventing for tomorrow
“A competently structured three-act CEO-survey deck with a real recommendation page but weak title craft and a buried hook - useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline, not of action-title writing.”
↓ The killer stat (60% survival concern, p.3 foreword callout) is buried instead of opening the deck
55
title quality
Banking: The future is back
“A polished trends catalog with strong pillar dividers and several excellent data-driven action titles, but structurally a parallel inventory rather than a persuasive SCQA story — use pp.13-16 (Scale pillar) as a teaching example for pillar writing, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ 'What's the trend?' and 'What do we expect by 2030?' appear as titles 15 times — topic labels, not insights
55
title quality
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
55
title quality
Nearshoring in Central America
“Solid analytical FDI/macro briefing with a strong data middle but weak narrative spine — use p.2 and p.15 as examples of good action titling, not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation under appendices.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends at p.18 with conditional upside and then 5 slides of appendix/sales/bios, so the 'so what' for a decision-maker is absent
55
title quality
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
55
title quality
KPMG 2020 CEO Outlook: COVID-19 Special Edition
“A competent survey-findings report dressed as a deck — useful as an exemplar of pillar scaffolding and percentage-led action titles, but a poor Storymakers model because it lacks a thesis, narrative tension, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No SCQA setup: 'Key findings' (p.4) lists outputs but never frames a Question the deck answers, so the analysis reads as parallel survey cuts rather than an argument