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 4 / 46
80
title quality
Cloud-migration opportunity: Business value grows, but missteps abound
“A tight, well-opened McKinsey 'point of view' mini-deck with insight-bearing titles and a clear value-at-stake hook, but the closing recommendation is buried in a run-on title - use the opening and metric-per-slide discipline as a teaching example, not the close.”
↓ Closing slide (p.8) action title is a 36-word run-on, not a directive; weakens the call to action
80
title quality
The State of Fashion Luxury
“A disciplined McKinsey/BoF analytical deck with strong data-bearing action titles and a clear three-act spine, but it diagnoses far better than it prescribes and closes on a single generic recommendation — use it as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative landing.”
↓ Closing recommendation (p.50) is generic and singular — the 'five strategic imperatives' teased on p.7 are never enumerated as a numbered close
80
title quality
Foodservice Market Monitor
“Analytically rigorous market monitor with above-average action titles, but structured as a data compendium that buries its single recommendation before a tool pitch — useful as a teaching example for title craft, not for Storymakers arc design.”
↓ Six 'Agenda' slides (p.4, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38) substitute for real MECE section dividers and break narrative momentum
80
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“Strong analytical industry report with exemplary action-titled body slides and a memorable nautical spine, but opens slowly and closes in a country data-dump rather than a recommendation — mine the sector sections (p.25-43) as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven pages of front matter (cover → disclaimer → methodology → scope) delay the thesis past the natural 'lead with the answer' window
80
title quality
Client Creditor Overview Q4 2023
“A disciplined investor-relations deck with a clean two-act arc and metric-laden action titles — a good exemplar of answer-led analytical writing, but weak on Complication and pillar scaffolding, so use it to teach title craft and quantitative spine rather than full SCQA narrative design.”
↓ Weak 'Complication' act — p.13 'Adapting to a world in transition' is the only tension slide and it's abstract ('Ready to seize opportunities') rather than naming specific pressures
78
title quality
Accenture Consumer Value Report 2021
“A well-structured commissioned value-quantification report with a strong BLUF opening and MECE essential/enriches pillars, but it is an analytical exposition rather than a Storymakers exemplar - it teaches pillar design and quantified action titles, not how to close with a recommendation.”
↓ No Resolution / CTA: deck ends on a gaming case study (p.27) then methodology - missing a 'what this means for NBN Co / policy / retailers' closing slide
78
title quality
A tough year for European chemicals players has come to an end – We do expect a continuation of the challenges into 2024
“A solid analytical diagnosis deck with disciplined action titles, but it ends as a credentials pitch rather than a recommendation -- useful as a teaching example for title craft and diagnosis flow, not for Storymakers closing discipline.”
↓ No explicit recommendation/next-steps slide -- p.13-16 outline a framework but never land on 'do these 3 things by Q2'
78
title quality
A&M Valuation Insights November 2023
“A competent quarterly valuation update with strong slide-level action titles but no overarching story — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and metric-anchored callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or 'answer first' slide — the thesis of the report is never stated up front
78
title quality
A&M Valuation Insights – German vs. European Banks
“Tight, well-titled analytical brief with strong headline+driver titles but no thesis opener or recommendation close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for full S→C→A→R narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.5 is labeled key_takeaways but reads as another data slide, and p.6 jumps straight to contacts
78
title quality
UAE Banking Pulse
“A competent analytical pulse report with strong declarative titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — use p.4–p.6 as a teaching example of insight-bearing action titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — the deck ends on a KPI recap (p.7) then straight into glossary
78
title quality
AI at Work: What People Are Saying
“A well-executed survey-findings deck with mostly strong action titles and a correctly placed recommendation slide, but it reads as an ordered sequence of findings rather than a Storymakers-style argument - useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a structural one.”
↓ No section dividers; 8 consecutive analyze_data slides (pp.4-11) flow without pillar signposting
78
title quality
Changing automotive work environment: Job effects in Germany until 2030
“A tight, honest analytical study with good declarative titles and a clear lead-with-the-answer summary — use p.2 and the p.5/6 paired titles as teaching examples, but not the closing, which fizzles into a soft recommendation and admin slides.”
↓ No stakes/hook slide before the executive summary — the deck assumes the reader already cares about the e-mobility jobs question
78
title quality
Fast-moving consumer goods: Driving value creation in an era of disruption
“A tight, well-titled BCG point-of-view deck with a textbook 'lead-with-the-answer' opening and a consistent five-imperatives scaffold, but the diagnosis act is too thin and the closing slips into topic-label territory — use p.3-p.7 as a teaching example of action-title discipline, not the deck as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ Diagnosis act is only ~3 slides (p.5-7) before pivoting to recommendations on p.9, leaving the 'why these 5 imperatives' logic underbuilt
78
title quality
Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference
“A tight 14-slide BCG press deck with strong declarative titles and a legible analytical arc, but it buries methodology up front and ends on a thesis restatement instead of a call to action: useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and paired contrast slides, not for closing structure.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or next-steps slide: the deck ends on a thesis restatement (p.13) followed by a brand cover, leaving the reader with a diagnosis but no prescription
78
title quality
The CEO’s Roadmap on Generative AI
“A well-structured three-pillar BCG executive perspective with strong analytical titles in the middle, but it opens slowly and ends in a checklist rather than a recommendation — use pp.5, 14, 15 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall arc as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Resolution is thin — p.31 'companies can adopt the following policies today' is a generic checklist, and p.32 is a team-bio slide; there is no synthesis slide restating the pillar-level recommendations
78
title quality
Media Entertainment Industry NYC
“A solid BCG sector-scan with strong quantified action titles and a reasonable MECE subsector structure, but it reads as an analytical survey — use pp.8-19 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall arc, because the recommendation is under-built and the close collapses into a thank-you slide.”
↓ Closing is a single recommendation slide (p.48) scoped only to filmed entertainment, followed by a bare 'Thank you' (p.49) — no prioritized roadmap, owners, or next steps for the other subsectors covered
78
title quality
Path to digital marketing maturity
“A tight, well-argued BCG report with strong action titles and a coherent S-C-A-R arc, but it buries its shock stat and closes on a generic 'Closing remarks' - use slides 5, 8, and 9 as teaching examples of insight titles, not the opener or closer.”
↓ Thesis buried on p.5 rather than stated in the first 2-3 slides - opener under-indexes on stakes
78
title quality
Streaming Video Back to Future
“A tight analytical insight deck with strong action titles slide-by-slide, but missing the opening thesis and closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title-writing, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1 is a mood title and p.2 jumps into a chart finding with no stated question or stakes.
78
title quality
Gen Z Attitudes Toward Higher Education
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong action titles and one good transition hinge, but flat structure and a soft landing make it a title-craft exemplar rather than a full Storymakers model.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — the 11 analytical slides read as a flat sequence rather than grouped chapters
78
title quality
How Can US Brands Reach Gen Z
“A well-titled but structurally incomplete insights handout — great teaching example for declarative action titles, poor exemplar for Storymakers narrative arc or MECE pillars.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck asks 'what do brands need to know?' on p.2 but never answers 'therefore, do X'
78
title quality
2025 Carbon Survey Report
“A competent survey-results deck with strong declarative titles and a numeric spine, but it stalls as a Storymakers exemplar because it never resolves - use pages 2, 4, 6, 8 as title-craft examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No resolution act - the deck ends on p.10 with a descriptive finding and no explicit recommendation or call to action
78
title quality
AI Radar 2025
“Competent BCG thought-leadership deck with a strong SCQA spine and mostly insight-bearing action titles — use the rhetorical-question dividers and data-led titles as teaching examples, but flag the buried lead and soft closing as what to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: the 75/25 gap on p.6 should be slide 2 or 3, not page six
78
title quality
AI at Work 2025
“A disciplined survey-insights deck with strong contrast-driven action titles and clean block architecture — use p.4-20 as a teaching example of divider + action-title craft, but do not cite the closing as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.26 'Strategic imperatives for leaders' is a topic label where the deck's strongest action title should live — the close under-delivers on the setup
78
title quality
Sustainability Private Markets
“A solid evidence-driven BCG research deck with strong action titles and parallel pillar structure, but it trails off into an appendix instead of closing the loop — use the analytical middle as a teaching example, not the ending.”
↓ Closing is weak: p.16 recommends only for the employee pillar and p.17 is a methodology appendix — no synthesis slide