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 40 / 46
38
title quality
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
38
title quality
Turkish NPL Purchasing Market Overview and the way forward
“A rigorous, scenario-driven Turkish NPL market study with strong forecast craftsmanship but weak Storymakers hygiene — use p.18-30 as a teaching example for forecast architecture, not for narrative or action-title discipline.”
↓ The promised 'way forward' is missing — no recommendation, no implication-for-AMCs slide, and the deck ends in policy recap + abbreviations + contact rather than a close
38
title quality
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide
38
title quality
IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT 2025
“A research report dressed as a deck -- exemplary executive-summary craft in p.5-9, but the body is an atlas of survey tables and the close evaporates into methodology, so use the opening as a teaching example and the body as a counter-example.”
↓ Body slides p.11-49 are repetitive topic-titled data tables ('...by Country' / '...by Generation') with no action titles surfacing the insight
38
title quality
Our life with AI: The reality of today and the promise of tomorrow
“A well-evidenced public-opinion research report with elegant chapter framing but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence/callout pairing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are poetic topic labels not insights — 'The promise of tomorrow.', 'Around the corner.', 'A generation away.' force the reader to decode each chart
38
title quality
REINVENTION WITH GENERATIVE AI: CalPERS
“A capabilities-and-education primer dressed as a client deck — useful as a teaching example of clean case-study slides (p.17–20) but a cautionary tale on story arc, since the client and the recommendation are both buried until the last two pages.”
↓ CalPERS — the named client — does not appear in the narrative until p.24, turning a client deck into a generic GenAI capabilities primer
38
title quality
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
38
title quality
Navigating uncertainty: PwC’s annual global Working Capital Study
“A competently structured PwC thought-leadership report with strong quantified stakes and clean section architecture, but topic-label titles and a soft service-pitch close keep it firmly in the 'analytical report' lane rather than the Storymakers exemplar tier.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic nouns or 'Figure X:' captions — the deck reads like a report TOC, not a story
38
title quality
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
38
title quality
inv research 20220928 crypto asset survey EN
“A competent topic-organized survey report with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — use the p.5-8 Key Findings pattern as a teaching example of leading with the answer, but not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — p.12 'Crypto Ownership' instead of '13% of Canadians own crypto, skewing young, male and investor-leaning'
38
title quality
wai ipsos innovation misperception epidemic
“A thesis-forward research note that lands its hook in the first two slides but then devolves into a data tour with no recommendation — use p.1-2 as a teaching example of strong openings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.13 demographics/usage table and then two 'About' bios (p.14-15) with zero recommendations
38
title quality
inv research 20231129 crypto asset survey 2023
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong MECE pillars and answer-first summaries, but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act make it useful as a teaching example of structure-without-argument rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation / 'so what' act — deck ends in an appendix with demographics (p.72), leaving the reader without next steps or policy implications
38
title quality
ey iif bank risk management survey
“A well-structured survey reference report with strong callouts but weak Storymakers discipline — use its front-loaded exec summary as a teaching example, but its raw 'Figure N: <question>' titles and absent recommendation are exactly what the methodology argues against.”
↓ Body-slide titles are mostly raw survey questions prefixed 'Figure N:' (pp.8,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,26,27,29,32,33) — the single biggest Storymakers failure in the deck
38
title quality
MSDL 4Q23 Earnings Presentation
“A competent investor earnings deck whose callouts do the storytelling its titles refuse to — useful as a teaching example of how action callouts can rescue topic-titled slides, but not a Storymakers exemplar at the deck level.”
↓ Two disclaimer pages (p.2-3) before any thesis — opening real estate is wasted
38
title quality
unlocking growth creating tech ecosystems
“A well-researched, MECE-disciplined regional ecosystems report whose analytical chapters are teachable but whose titles, opening thesis, and sponsor-led close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the parallel Edinburgh/Manchester build, not the narrative frame.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights: 'Executive summary' (p.4), 'Key recommendations' (p.5), 'Edinburgh: Tech investors' (p.18) — the reader cannot skim the action titles and get the argument.
35
title quality
Deloitte Global 2024 Gen Z and Millennial Survey Country profile: Netherlands
“A competent survey-data country report organised as a topic dump with noun-label titles and no arc or close — use it as a counter-example of what happens when action titles and resolution are missing, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Situation→Complication→Answer→Resolution arc: p.2 jumps straight from methodology into a topic parade with no central tension or thesis
35
title quality
The future of M&A 2022 M&A Trends Survey
“A competent survey-report deck with quantified findings but weak Storymakers hygiene — reuse for teaching callout-writing and framework slides, not for action titles, pillar architecture, or closings.”
↓ Title reuse across 4-6 consecutive slides (e.g. 'Beyond the basics' p.13-18, 'What is your place on the playing field?' p.31-37) destroys slide-level action-title discipline
35
title quality
VC Human Capital Survey
“A competent longitudinal survey report with a real three-act spine and a genuine call-to-action block, but titles are topic labels and the resolution is dwarfed by the analytical middle — use pp.38-40 as a teaching example of an explicit recommendations coda, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title layer carries almost no insight — 'Gender diversity' repeated on pp.12-15, 'Racial diversity' repeated 7x on pp.16-22; the pull-quotes do the work the titles should
35
title quality
IFRS 9 Impairment Banking Survey
“A dense, insight-rich benchmarking survey whose callouts do the storytelling while the titles abdicate it — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks a resolution act and mistakes a numbered TOC for a narrative spine.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — p.6-17 all read '1. Impact assessment – [subtopic]' with the actual finding hidden in the callout
35
title quality
IBV Global Business Services Cover
“A concept-led IBM thought-leadership piece with a clear thesis but weak editorial discipline on titles and no sharp call to action — useful as a teaching example of framework reveal (p.8, p.10), not of Storymakers action-titling or closing craft.”
↓ The phrase 'The Individual Enterprise' is reused as a title on p.1, p.4, p.6, p.8, and p.18 — the deck leans on the brand phrase instead of differentiating each slide's insight
35
title quality
Project Management: Improving performance, reducing risk
“A competently-structured awareness deck for a board audience that uses question-based section dividers well but reads as a topic walkthrough rather than an argument — useful as a teaching example of how clear section spines do not by themselves produce a Storymakers narrative when action titles and a synthesized close are missing.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the thesis is delayed until p.10 and never restated as a single declarative claim
35
title quality
Risk Management as a catalyst for growth
“An awards-ceremony deck dressed as a thought-leadership piece — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and sponsor-driven sectioning suppress an otherwise defensible argument; not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the opening — the cover promises 'Risk Management as a catalyst for growth' but slides 1-9 deliver only logistics and a textbook definition; the 'catalyst' claim is never substantiated
35
title quality
Global IPO Watch 2021 A PwC Global IPO Centre publication
“A well-structured market-data report with MECE geographic coverage, but as a Storymakers exemplar it shows what NOT to do — topic-label titles, no Complication/Resolution arc, and a deck that ends in tables; use only the callout sentences as a teaching example of insight-bearing language.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 'Overview of IPO and FO activity in the Americas' (p.12-13) is repeated verbatim with no differentiation
35
title quality
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway