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
635 matching · page 4 / 27
78
title quality
Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 2 Globalization & future markets
“A solid trend-report deck with above-average action-title discipline and a real recommendation act, but it buries its thesis behind six slides of front-matter and hides its MECE pillar structure — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callout craft, not for opening or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening fails to lead with the answer — p.1-6 is all framing; an answer-first synthesis slide is missing
78
title quality
U.S. Podcast Advertising Revenue Study
“A competent industry benchmark report with above-average action titles and a brave answer-first opening, but it loses the narrative arc midway and ends in an analytical dump — useful as an exemplar of declarative titling and front-loaded thesis, not of full SCQA structure.”
↓ Closing collapses into 'Additional findings' (p.24) → appendix with no recap, no decision slide, and no memorable mic-drop
78
title quality
Warehouse Automation
“A competent banker/consultant thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and a clean sizing spine, but it is an analytical build-up that buries the recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and market sizing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.17-20 in credentials, team bio, and disclaimers — there is no recommendation, decision frame, or 'what to do next' slide
78
title quality
CCPC INVESTMENTS RESEARCH
“A competent survey-readout deck with strong declarative chart titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' is sparse with no synthesized thesis — wastes the highest-attention slot in the deck
78
title quality
Growing in a Turbulent World
“A competent analytical-build KPMG market POV with strong action titles, but it ends in questions instead of a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title craft and analytical sequencing, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Closing slide p.13 'Strategic questions for asset managers' replaces a recommendation with open questions — no 'where to play / how to win' answer
78
title quality
True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights
“A polished annual research compendium with consistently strong action titles and an exemplary CX mini-arc (pp.58-77), but as a whole deck it is an eight-chapter trends catalogue rather than a single Storymakers argument — use the CX section as a teaching example of SCQA, not the overall structure.”
↓ No deck-level thesis or 'answer-first' slide in the first 5 pages — reader has to infer the argument from chapter titles
78
title quality
RAIL FREIGHT IN CENTRAL ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST
“A well-disciplined two-region analytical study with strong action titles and parallel MECE structure, but it reads as two stacked reports rather than one Storymakers arc — use the title craft and country-deep-dive template as a teaching example, not the overall narrative shape.”
↓ Executive Summary slides p.11–13 are titled '(1/3), (2/3), (3/3)' — wasted real estate where the thesis should live
78
title quality
Creating Value with GenAI in Asset Management
“A well-structured McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong quantified titles and clear pillars, but it teaches opportunity sizing better than it teaches SCQA — use slides 5/6/16 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Opening buries the lede: the asset-management-specific number doesn't appear until p.6 after generic CEO/industry context
78
title quality
Review of 2024 capital markets performance
“A competent McKinsey market-review chartbook with strong action titles and a clever median-vs-mean build, but it lacks a resolution act and a real exec summary — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at p.13 with a trend observation rather than a recommendation or 'implications for executives' close
78
title quality
4th edition eReadiness 2023
“A strong research-report exemplar with disciplined action titles and clean MECE segmentation, but a weak Storymakers arc — buries a 2-slide recommendation at the end of 70 pages of analysis; use the analytical title-writing as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendations compressed to just 2 of 83 slides (pp.79-80) and both carry the identical generic title — the 'so what' is essentially unwritten
78
title quality
Technology Is the Fast Track to Net Zero
“A solid analytical thought-leadership piece with strong stat-driven titles, but it buries the recommendation and ends in a product pitch — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft and MECE diagnostic flow, not of Resolution or call-to-action.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.14 substitutes a product pitch for synthesis
78
title quality
Unlocking the next wave of digital growth: beyond metropolitan Indonesia
“A well-structured Kearney/Alpha JWC market report with disciplined action titles and a MECE four-act spine, but it buries its thesis under five forewords and dissipates its recommendation across the deck — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and segmentation storytelling, less so for opening hook or answer-first close.”
↓ Front matter is bloated — 5 forewords/quote slides (p.2–7) before the executive summary, burying the thesis
78
title quality
New-business building in 2022: Driving growth in volatile times
“A well-quantified McKinsey survey readout with disciplined action titles but no resolution — use it as a teaching example for declarative numeric titles, not for narrative arc or closes.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on p.12 description, then acknowledgments (p.13)
78
title quality
The individual health insurance market in 2023
“A solid analytical market briefing with disciplined, number-led action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 5–12 to teach insight-bearing titles, not the deck's overall arc, which lacks Complication, pillars, and Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so-what' — deck ends on p. 12 data and a wordmark (p. 13)
78
title quality
Quantum Technology Monitor
“A high-quality analytical monitor with exemplary action titles and quantified framing, but it reads as a reference almanac rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for title craft and data-comparison slides, not for arc structure or closing.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck ends on appendix/team bio (pp. 101–103) after a speculative AI tangent (pp. 99–100)
78
title quality
What’s next for digital consumers
“A solid McKinsey insight memo with declarative titles and a real complication beat, but it buries the opening thesis and has no closing recommendation — use the title craft and p.8 tension as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening is soft: p.2 is a generic 'Introduction' instead of a thesis slide, costing one of the most valuable real-estate pages.
78
title quality
Royal Foundation Attitudes to Early Childhood Key Findings PUBLIC 150622 41
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and a clean S->C opening, but it is an analytical walk-through that never lands a recommendation — use the first 7 slides as a teaching example of findings framing, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends on a data table (p.16) and a Contact page (p.17)
78
title quality
ipsos global trends 2021 report
“A genuinely well-titled, MECE-structured trends report that earns its analytical middle but fumbles the close — use slides 18–46 as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not the ending.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what': the deck ends on a rhetorical question (p.50) and a corporate slide (p.51) — readers leave without an action
78
title quality
ey connecting the dots m a deals in technology services in 2024
“A competent banker landscape report with strong action titles and tight analytical density, but it is a data brief — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it lacks a stakes-setting opening, MECE pillars and any closing recommendation.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on team_bio (p.9) and methodology/disclaimer, leaving the reader with data but no action
78
title quality
m and a trends and outlook in the technology services sector
“A solidly built analytical M&A retrospective with disciplined action titles and clean segment MECE, but it abandons its 'paradox' hook and ends on industry quotes instead of a recommendation — use the title-writing and segment structure as a teaching example, not the narrative arc.”
↓ The 'Year of Paradoxes' cover thesis is never operationalized — no slide names the paradox, so the narrative tension promised on p.1 evaporates.
78
title quality
ey tt amcham presentation 2023 economic outlook 20230123
“A competent survey-results deck with strong action-title craft on individual slides, but structurally it is a parallel findings dump rather than a Storymakers argument — useful as an exemplar of action-title writing, not of narrative arc.”
↓ No upfront answer — the thesis/recommendation is never stated in the first 5 slides; the reader must reach p9 for the first insight and p35 for the conclusion
78
title quality
ey norwegian crypto adoption survey v2
“A competent survey-findings readout with strong action titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative slide titles, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.13 then dumps into appendix/disclaimer (pp.14–16)
78
title quality
ey uli fow global survey 2020 report
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with strong headline discipline but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide; deck dissolves into 'About ULI / About EY' on p.24-25 instead of resolving the argument
78
title quality
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution