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 35 / 46
54
title quality
Deutsche Bank Q1 2023 Presentation
“A competent IR earnings deck with an answer-first opening and strong callouts, but structurally an analytical status report rather than a Storymakers narrative — use its executive summary and segment callouts as exemplars of answer-first writing, not its overall arc or title discipline.”
↓ No Complication act — the deck never frames a problem or tension, so the analysis has nothing to resolve; it reads as a status update, not a story
52
title quality
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
52
title quality
Transformation Ebook
“A credible BCG framework compendium with MECE bones and strong quantified case studies, but a book-format opening and a non-existent closing make it a weak Storymakers structural exemplar — use the exhibits and chapter frameworks as teaching artifacts, not the deck's overall narrative discipline.”
↓ Opening is book-style front matter — three TRANSFORMATION covers, disclaimer, TOC — so the thesis is not visible until p.9 and the framework not until p.11, failing the 'lead with the answer' rule
52
title quality
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A competent Deloitte Insights trends report with solid per-section rhythm and data discipline, but structurally a topic anthology that opens slowly, closes flat, and lets six 'just the number' placeholder titles slip through — use the intra-section frame→data→case→recommend pattern as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ Six slides carry titles that are just the trend number ('03' on pp.11, 29, 31, 33; '04' on pp.39, 42) — the single biggest Storymakers violation in the deck.
52
title quality
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A competent industry research report with a logical value-chain spine and pockets of real insight titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close, and too many topic-label titles — useful as a case study in how to rewrite breadcrumb titles into action titles, not as a model of narrative structure.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide — the reader must read 16+ pages before any synthesis, and none ever arrives
52
title quality
2022 CEO Outlook
“A data-rich research report dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example for stat-anchored callouts, but its topic-label titles, missing Complication, and weak close make it a poor Storymakers exemplar overall.”
↓ No Complication act: p.4 lists 'four themes' but never escalates to a single tension the deck must resolve, so the middle reads as parallel topic chapters
52
title quality
SDG reporting 2018
“A solid SDG research report with a strong complication arc but a missing third act — use p.1, p.10, p.19, p.23 as a teaching example for quantitative tension-building, and treat the closing (p.34-36) as a counter-example of how analytical decks evaporate without a synthesis slide.”
↓ Resolution is one slide (p.28 'A blueprint for SDG success') sandwiched between case studies and methodology — the prescription is dramatically underweight relative to the diagnosis
52
title quality
Copernicus Market report
“A meticulously quantified, MECE-by-sector EU market study with strong evidence but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of consistent sectoral templates and metric discipline, not of Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, synthesis, or call-to-action - the deck stops at Security case studies and slides into appendix (pp. 156-164).
52
title quality
Retail banking survey Sustainability and retail banking
“Competent short-form thought-leadership whitepaper with a clear risk thesis but topic-label titles and a thin recommendation - useful as a teaching example for callout writing and S->C->A->R skeleton, not for action-title craft or closing punch.”
↓ Page titles are nouns/topics, not declarative insights - the strong callouts on p.4, p.6, p.8 should have been promoted to titles
52
title quality
Solving fashion’s product returns
“A British Fashion Council research report dressed as a deck — strong evidence, well-quantified problem, and excellent recommendation/case-study pairing, but inconsistent action titles and a placeholder-titled call-to-action mean it is a useful exemplar for analytical build-up and case-study integration, not for Storymakers structural discipline.”
↓ ~14 slides use the deck title 'Solving Fashion's Product Returns' as the slide title (pp.8, 19, 21, 26, 35, 42, 55, 59, 60, 64, 81, 82, 85, 87), forfeiting the action-title slot entirely.
52
title quality
Market Year in Review and Outlook 2021
“A competent industry-association data briefing with a few exemplary action titles and callouts, but structurally an analytical dump with empty dividers, mid-deck methodology, and a non-sequitur close — useful as a teaching example for individual slide titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ p.4 section divider wastes a structural slot by just repeating the deck title instead of naming the pillar
52
title quality
The generative AI advantage in financial services
“A serviceable thought-leadership PDF with one strong action title and disciplined callouts, but structurally a topic-dump that buries its thesis and ends in a vendor pitch — useful as a teaching example of weak openings and noun-titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening is dead weight — p.1 cover + p.2 generic 'Introduction' burn two of the deck's ten pages without establishing stakes or thesis
52
title quality
Elevating the Exchange
“A competent consulting reinvention deck with a numbered four-step spine and solid quantitative backing, but clever topic-label titles and a soft close keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar - useful as a teaching case for MECE structure, not for action titles.”
↓ Section divider inconsistency: p.19 breaks the 'Step N' pattern used on p.10/15/23, undermining the MECE promise
52
title quality
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
52
title quality
Digital Finance Seeing is Believing
“A competent webinar companion deck with a clean four-act journey and a strong case-study triptych, but interrogative titles and heavy front-matter make it only a mediocre Storymakers exemplar — use the Problem/Solution/Benefits case-study cadence as a teaching sample, not the overall title craft.”
↓ Six slides of webinar front-matter (p.1-6) before any content — thesis doesn't land until p.10, violating 'lead with the answer'
52
title quality
Leadership: Driving innovation and delivering impact The Deloitte Global Chief Procurement Officer Survey 2018
“A competent annual survey report with MECE pillars and good benchmarking, but it buries its recommendation mid-deck and ends in reference content — useful as a section-architecture exemplar, not as a model for opening, closing, or action-title craft.”
↓ Recommendations compressed into a single slide ('Action starts here', p.35) and placed before the industry/regional appendix — the call to action is structurally buried
52
title quality
The Future of Food Challenges & opportunities
“Competent data-rich industry report with a clear three-theme framing but weak Storymakers craft — use its metric-anchored analytical slides (p.13, p.26, p.28) as teaching examples, not its overall arc or titling discipline.”
↓ No answer-first opening: thesis is diluted across p.4-8 and never crystallized into a single provocation or recommendation slide up front
52
title quality
our life with ai google ipsos report
“A well-structured thematic research report with disciplined one-stat-per-slide craft, but it reads as a findings document rather than a Storymakers-grade argument — use its section scaffolding as a teaching example, not its opening or close.”
↓ No thesis slide in the opening — foreword (p.2) talks about the study, not the answer; reader reaches p.5 before encountering a finding
52
title quality
MorganStanley
“A fund-product pitchbook with a respectable macro storytelling opener but no resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft in the macro section (pp.5-16), not as a structural Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ First 5 slides bury the lede behind cover + two disclaimers + a question title (p.4); no executive summary or thesis statement
52
title quality
rmb morgan stanley conference quilter september 2019
“Competent investor-conference update with a clean three-pillar spine but missing the Complication and a real close — useful as an example of pillar structure and callout discipline, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the problem the strategy is solving, so 'Business initiatives' (p10-14) feel like activities rather than answers
52
title quality
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself
52
title quality
2024 Barclays ESG Conference Presentation
“Competent IR-style conference deck with clean chapter structure but thesis-lite opening and topic-label section dividers — useful as a teaching example of section-divider rhythm and SCQA Question slides (p.24), not of action-title craft or opening/closing discipline.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opening is a standard corporate intro, not a Storymakers hook
52
title quality
Barclays FY2023 ESG Investor Presentation
“A competent ESG disclosure deck structured as a taxonomy rather than a story — useful as a teaching example of MECE pillar dividers and KPI dashboards, but a cautionary example for Storymakers narrative: no complication, no recommendation, and a closing that dissolves into appendix.”
↓ No complication or recommendation — the 'Answer' act of SCQA is entirely absent; no slide says 'so here is what we are committing to next'
50
title quality
Capgemini Group Presentation 2022
“A competent corporate brochure deck with an elegant three-pillar spine and a clever linked-title device, but not a Storymakers exemplar — it delivers identity, not argument, and should be used to teach pillar architecture and title chaining rather than narrative arc or calls to action.”
↓ No SCQA: there is no Complication or Question — the deck moves straight from 'who we are' (p.3) to 'what we do' without naming a client problem