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 42 / 46
32
title quality
what worries the world december 2024
“A disciplined recurring data tracker with strong callout writing and clean pillar structure, but undermined by topic-label titles and no closing synthesis — use it as an example of how to write quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Title 'Current Economic Situation' appears on 9 consecutive slides (p.35–46) with no country or finding to differentiate them — readers cannot scan the section
30
title quality
2021 P&C Underwriting Survey
“A rigorous but inert survey-findings readout — useful as a teaching example of consistent callouts and segmentation discipline, but a Storymakers anti-example for its noun-titles, missing recommendation act, and taxonomy-over-argument structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on open-end verbatims (p.57-58) with zero call to action
30
title quality
The shape of retail: Consumers and the new normal
“A raw survey appendix masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of what happens when action titles are left as question stems and the close is a contacts page.”
↓ Titles on p.3–p.6 are verbatim survey questions rather than insights — the reader must infer the takeaway
30
title quality
IPSOS POPULISM SURVEY
“A competent research-data report with a strong opening hook but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and section structure, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questionnaire text and the deck ends in branding rather than a 'so what'.”
↓ Titles are survey-question text, not action titles — slides 24-31 read like a questionnaire transcript, not an argument
30
title quality
Everest Group Trust and Safety Services PEAK Matrix Assessment 2025
“A reprint of a third-party analyst evaluation rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a positive exemplar.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides titled 'Accenture profile (page X of 8)' (p.5-12) — pagination is not a title and erases the insight on each page
30
title quality
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A well-scaffolded research report masquerading as a deck — use its MECE divider structure and evidence mix as a teaching example, but not its titling discipline or its missing recommendation act.”
↓ Action titles are question labels, not insights — ~20 of 29 slides reuse the section question verbatim, forcing the reader to mine the callout for the point
30
title quality
Deloitte SEA CFO Forum Southeast Asia Business Outlook
“A services brochure dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example of how a parallel-pillar capabilities dump fails the Storymakers tests (no SCQA, topic-label titles, firm-first opening, contacts-page ending), not as an exemplar to emulate.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis: the deck never names a Complication the CFO should care about, so every services block arrives unmotivated
30
title quality
ipsos the perils of perception 2024
“A competent research-findings report with a clear thesis but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of how strong opening callouts and one well-titled correlation slide (p.35) get drowned by question-as-title data dumps and a missing recommendations act.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights - p.13/14/15 all share the same interrogative title with no takeaway
30
title quality
Ipsos report Single use plastics
“A competently executed but narratively flat survey readout — strong as a reference document for the underlying data, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questions, the structure is a topic dump, and the deck ends without ever telling the reader what to do.”
↓ No synthesis or recommendation slide anywhere — the deck ends on p.31 with a producer-fee benchmark and jumps straight to methodology
30
title quality
Global Report What Worries the World Jul 23 WEB
“A monthly IPSOS tracker with solid data hygiene and a roughly MECE spine, but written as a topic inventory rather than a story — useful as a negative example of title quality and closing weakness, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes slide in the opening — covers (p.1-2) are decorative, not setup
30
title quality
ey og q3 2020 price point client deck
“A competent periodic market-outlook brief with one good editorial instinct (the 'divergence' theme) that it fails to pay off — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and an unresolved thesis flatten an otherwise well-sequenced analysis.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Market fundamentals' appears 3x (p.5–7) and 'Gas price outlook' 2x (p.10–11) with no differentiation
30
title quality
ey og q2 2021 price point client deck
“A competent quarterly market briefing with strong callouts and quantified analysis, but it stops at 'here is what we see' and never reaches 'here is what to do' — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and editorial pull-quotes, not for storymaking structure or action titles.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends in 4 appendix slides plus contacts, with zero recommendation or 'what to do about it'
30
title quality
business leaders outlook pulse 2023 ada
“A competently-written survey-results deck with strong callout writing but no narrative arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles—use it as a counter-example of how a thoughtful exec summary can be wasted by a structureless body and a missing close.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or call-to-action anywhere in the deck—it ends on 'External threats' (p.8) then methodology
30
title quality
unlocking the uk s tech talent potential
“A well-sourced landscape report structured as a talent-lifecycle taxonomy — use the MECE pillar spine and embedded case studies as teaching examples, but not the narrative: it sets up a £63b problem and never delivers a recommendation.”
↓ No resolution: the £63b problem set up on p.3 is never tied to a recommendation, leaving the deck as a landscape report rather than a consulting argument
30
title quality
immobilienfonds 20231231 en
“A reference booklet of peer benchmarks dressed as a deck — useful as raw material but a weak Storymakers exemplar; use only p.4 as a teaching case for insight titles, and treat the rest as a counter-example of topic-label dumps.”
↓ No thesis or executive summary in the first 3 slides — the reader never learns why this deck exists
28
title quality
2023 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey
“A credible data-rich survey report with strong callouts and metrics, but structurally a topic-tour with question-form titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how to put insights in the title bar, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are almost uniformly questions rather than answers (p.8, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.21, p.23, p.25, p.26) — the reader has to mine callouts to extract the so-what
28
title quality
Reinforcing the New South Wales Southern Shared Network (HumeLink) PADR – EY Market Modelling
“A technically rigorous market-modelling report in deck clothing — useful as a counter-example of how burying the answer and using topic titles instead of action titles weakens even strong analysis; do not use as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide anywhere — the 'preferred option' (Option 3C) is never stated as a headline, only implied through a highlighted table row on p.11
28
title quality
Our Impact Plan 2023
“A well-structured ESG/impact report with exemplary MECE pillar architecture but weak action titles and no call to action — use the section-divider structure as a teaching example, not the title craft or the closing.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (p.13 'Purposeful business', p.25 'Human rights', p.51 'Decarbonization', p.59 'Climate risk') — the action-title discipline is largely absent
28
title quality
Re-Imagine the Possible 2018/2019
“A topic-organized budget walkthrough with strong numerical content but weak narrative scaffolding — useful as a teaching example of how MECE pillars and quantitative anchors are necessary but not sufficient without action titles and an explicit thesis.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is cover/agenda/divider/divider/framework with no stated point of view
28
title quality
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent GRI-aligned sustainability disclosure that is well-evidenced but narratively flat — useful as a teaching example of KPI density and ESG taxonomy, but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it has topic-label titles, no tension, and no recommendation close.”
↓ Action titles are largely absent — p.22 'Economic performance', p.67 'Trainings', p.84 'Pollutant emission' are nouns, not insights
28
title quality
Namibia Budget on plate 2019-20
“A topic-organised PwC budget walkthrough with strong data and decent callouts but no thesis, no MECE pillars, and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No lead-with-the-answer slide in positions 1-3; the deck never tells you what PwC concludes about the 2019/2020 budget
28
title quality
WORLD AFFAIRS
“A polished public-opinion survey report with strong section scaffolding but weak Storymakers DNA — it dumps findings instead of telling a story; use the priority-vs-preparation gap section (p32-35) as a teaching example of derived-metric analysis, but not the structure or titling.”
↓ No executive answer up front: p3 'Key findings' is one page with a single 76% stat and no thesis, forcing the reader to assemble the message themselves
28
title quality
MARKET DATA FROM SECONDARY SOURCES
“A secondary-research data tour disguised as a deck — useful as a counter-example of methodology-first structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation anywhere — the deck is a methodology demonstration ('here is how we pull secondary data'), not an argument
28
title quality
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? JULY 2023
“A disciplined tracker with strong callout hygiene but weak Storymakers craft — useful as a teaching example of consistent metric anchoring, not of narrative arc or action-title writing.”
↓ Action titles are nouns ('CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION: JAPAN' p24, '7 | CLIMATE CHANGE' p17) — the deck hides its own findings inside callout boxes