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
374 matching · page 5 / 16
76
title quality
Fearon DBConference 2019
“A competent investor/IR deck with strong action-title discipline and a real arc, but it buries the thesis 20 slides in and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example of action-title writing and slide-chaining, not of Storymakers opening/closing craft.”
↓ Thesis deferred ~20 pages — p.21 'Eaton is well positioned to take advantage of these growth trends' should be near the front, not two-thirds in
75
title quality
IoT Mobile Internet Data Analytics 2030
“Solid analytical build with quantified action titles and concrete case studies, but it is a discussion document not a recommendation deck - useful as a teaching example for action-titled body slides, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Answer/Resolution act - deck ends at p.14 on a stat, then 'Thank You' (p.15); the reader is left to synthesize the four threads themselves
75
title quality
The State of Fashion 2025
“An encyclopedic annual industry report with strong McKinsey-style action titles and disciplined per-theme SCQA, but it lacks an overarching arc and fizzles into pull-quotes and appendices — use the analytical sections (especially Sportswear pp.99-108 and the Global Fashion Index pp.129-141) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No synthesis slide before the appendix — pp.141-145 dribble into pull-quotes ('Fashion System', 'McKinsey Global Fashion Index') instead of a 10-theme recap or CTA
74
title quality
Hyper-disruption demands constant reinvention
“A well-scaffolded analytical report with a legible S-C-R arc and mostly declarative titles, but it buries the ask in a sprawling sub-pillar-less recommendation act and ends with summary rather than CTA — use the opening framing and data-forward titling as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Seven slides use the 'A quick take on...' construction (p.9, p.11, p.24, p.26, p.30, p.32, p.33), a topic-label pattern that undercuts the otherwise declarative title standard
74
title quality
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q4 2023
“A strong-opening BCG pulse report with declarative action titles worth teaching from, but it has no closing act and buries itself in a 7-slide table appendix — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as exemplars for 'answer-first' titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends at p18 and then devolves into a 7-slide appendix of comparison tables (p19-25) with no recommendation or call-to-action.
74
title quality
Investor Perspectives Series Pulse Check 21
“A disciplined survey-results deck with strong declarative headlines and upfront thesis, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and inverted-pyramid openings, not for full SCQA arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for executives' slide — p.4 gestures at 'upcoming investor communications should address…' but it is not developed into a resolution act
74
title quality
Asia-Pacific 2022 Hospital Priorities Survey: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent analytical survey readout with disciplined numeric action titles and a strong mid-deck pivot, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers' its title promises — use pp.3-10 as a teaching example of front-loaded findings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the subtitle — deck ends on p.21 data then contact/disclaimer
74
title quality
Impact of the US BIOSECURE Act on Biopharmas, Contract Services and Investors
“A competent, quant-anchored survey readout with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it sells its own findings short by ending in a capabilities pitch instead of a recommendation - use slides 7-8 as examples of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a capabilities slide (p.11) and a sales CTA (p.12) instead of a recommendation for biopharmas, CxOs or investors
74
title quality
Battery materials demand and supply perspective
“A competent McKinsey market-perspective deck with strong quantified action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens without a thesis and closes on 'unknowns remain' plus a generic 'Conclusion' — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft (p.4–9), not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ p.11 is titled 'Conclusion' — a topic label, not an action title — and offers no recommendation or next step
74
title quality
Emerging GenAI Use Cases Credit
“A competent McKinsey survey readout with strong action titles and a sharp opening tension, but it inverts its own ending and lacks visible MECE structure — use it as an exemplar for action-title writing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Closes on pain-points (pp.16-17) instead of recommendation — the 'what leaders do' slide (p.15) is mis-sequenced
74
title quality
The Heartbeat of Progress
“A competent OliverWyman thought-leadership study with strong action titles and a BLUF opening, but it ends in a soft conclusion plus decorative filler — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing, not for closing structure.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 17 pages flow as a topic list, hurting orientation
74
title quality
the true value of green: willingness to pay for sustainability in consumer & home electronics
“Solid analytical mid-section with declarative titles and a clear conjoint backbone, but the deck buries its recommendation in a single 'Key takeaways' label - use slides 5-10 as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is a single label slide ('Key takeaways', p.13) with no recommendation, action, or next step for the audience
74
title quality
Blurred lines FinTech 2016
“A solid PwC thought-leadership report with a clear thesis and disciplined 'so what?' moments, but it leans analytical-heavy and fizzles at the close — useful as a teaching example for answer-first openings and rhetorical titles, less so as a model of resolution.”
↓ Closing is anticlimactic — p.29 'Conclusion' is a generic label and there is no explicit recommendation or action slide before the appendix dump
74
title quality
21st CEO Survey
“A well-structured thematic survey report with a memorable cover thesis and strong action titles, but it teaches data-storytelling craft better than full SCQA structure — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as an end-to-end Storymakers template.”
↓ Multiple slides surface only the running header as their title ('15 | PwC's 21st CEO Survey' on p.10, 11, 15, 17, 23, 27) — wastes the most powerful slot on the page
74
title quality
Insurance landscape evolution and emergence of MGA/ MGU model
“A well-structured Asian insurance market scan with strong MECE dividers and mostly insight-bearing action titles, but it analyzes more than it argues — useful as a teaching example for section spines and metric-in-title discipline, not for closing the loop with a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first slide: the thesis never appears in the first 3 pages — agenda promises a 'deep dive' instead of stating a finding
74
title quality
What if the ECB raises its policy rates? Roland Berger Institute
“Solid analytical short-form publication with disciplined action titles, but it builds a case and then refuses to land it — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and precedent analysis, not for closing the loop.”
↓ No Resolution act: deck ends on p.10 with 'overall impact is hard to assess' — a non-answer to the cover question
74
title quality
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
74
title quality
South Africa Economic Outlook Productivity Potential Index (PPI): A new way of measuring countries’ productive competiti
“A tight diagnostic note with strong action titles and an implicit MECE pillar structure, but it stops at diagnosis — useful as an example of pillar-based analysis, not as a full S→C→A→R Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.9 diagnosis then jumps to p.10 contacts, with no recommendation or next-steps slide
74
title quality
The economic contribution of Western Australia’s oil and gas industry
“A competent advocacy mini-report with disciplined action titles and a strong benefit-translation closer (p.7), but it lacks a recommendation and any complication beat — useful as an example of tight quantified storytelling, not as a full SCQA exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on community-benefit translation then jumps to appendix at p.8
74
title quality
Saudi Arabia Banking Pulse
“A competent quarterly metric tour with strong action titles and quantified callouts, but it lacks a thesis-led opening and any closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing discipline, not for SCQA storytelling.”
↓ No recommendation, outlook, or 'what to watch' slide — the deck dies into a glossary at p.24-28
74
title quality
PwC's 22nd Annual Global CEO Survey
“A well-signposted research-survey deck with strong action titles in its analytical core but a missing resolution act — use pillars 1–3 as a teaching example for MECE structure and action-title discipline, not the closing.”
↓ ~10 slides reuse the report name '22nd Annual Global CEO Survey' as the slide title (p.9, 11, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 37, 42), abdicating the action-title discipline
74
title quality
February Macro Brief
“A well-titled, thesis-opened macro periodical that functions as a chart-pack briefing rather than a Storymakers arc — use p.1-22 as a teaching example of opening + regional MECE, but the 40-slide indicator tail and missing recommendation make the full deck a weak structural exemplar.”
↓ No closing/recommendation act — deck dies on p.62 bond-yield chart and p.63 team bio; the capex thesis is never re-landed for the executive reader
74
title quality
Roland Berger Trend Compendium 2030 Megatrend 4 Climate change & ecosystem at risk
“A solid trend-research deck with strong numerate action titles in the middle, but it opens with throat-clearing and lands with generic recommendations — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for SCQA structure.”
↓ First 5 slides are meta-context about the Trend Compendium rather than a thesis or hook — no SCQA opening
74
title quality
Good times for a change
“A competent Bain industry-outlook deck with strong numeric action titles and a clean regional MECE run, but it buries the answer, never operationalizes its own 3C pillar, and trails off without a call to action — use slides 17-22 and 28 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No executive-summary or answer-first slide in the first three pages; the '2024E at a glance' recap is buried at p.15 where it should be at p.3