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
737 matching · page 5 / 31
78
title quality
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
78
title quality
The Combustion Engine Business Model in the Age of Electromobility
“Solid analytical BCG-style build with strong action titles in the body, but it leads with topic-label summary slides and lacks a closing recommendation; use the scenario->strategy->archetype->value-matrix structure as a teaching example, not the executive bookends.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps slide; deck terminates on archetype analysis (p.13) and falls straight into front matter (p.14-16)
78
title quality
The Growing Challenge of Semiconductor Design Leadership
“Solid SIA/BCG advocacy briefing with strong quantified middle (p.8-13) but no recommendation and a slow open — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analytical slides, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.14 sizes the prize ($450B) but never says what policies, leaving the deck as a problem statement without an answer
78
title quality
The future trends in ASEAN steel market
“A solid analytical consulting deck with strong action titles and a clean three-pillar recommendation, but it buries the lead and fades into a generic close — useful as an exemplar for action-title writing and MECE pillars, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Buried lead — thesis arrives on p.5 after a credentials slide (p.2) and a topic-label slide (p.3 'Key trends in...')
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
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
What if all vehicles were electric?
“Solid analytical point-of-view with quantified titles but a missing resolution act — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on rate-limiters (p.9) with no recommendation, implication, or answer to the cover question
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
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
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
March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge
“Analytically rigorous macro chart-pack with strong action titles in the first third, but it abandons the story arc halfway and ends without a recommendation — use pp.5-21 as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the deck structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on p.61 yield curves and p.62 About Accenture, so the reader never gets an ask
78
title quality
COVID-19 Auto & Mobility Consumer Insights
“A disciplined McKinsey research deck with strong action titles and clean analytical pillars, but it stops at 'here is what we found' instead of 'here is what to do' — use it as a teaching example for title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, implication, or call-to-action slide — the deck simply runs out after p.43 and a misplaced p.45 discount chart
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
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A well-titled diagnostic brief with a clean opening but no recommendation or MECE spine — use the action-title craft on pp.2/5/8 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a diagnostic finding (p.8) plus a methodology page (p.9) with zero recommendations or next steps
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
ey praesentation startup barometer 2025 englisch
“A disciplined EY research barometer with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 4, 8, and 11 as exemplars of headline-number titles, but not the deck structure as a Storymakers model.”
↓ No SCQA setup: the deck never frames why 2024 matters, what changed for German startups, or what question the data is answering