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
726 matching · page 5 / 31
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
AUTOMOTIVE –OES
“Competent Accenture research report with a legible SCQA spine and strong quantified titles, but the recommendation act is under-built relative to the diagnosis — use the opening (p.2-4) and transitions (p.19, p.22) as Storymakers teaching examples, not the resolution.”
↓ The 'four best practices' resolution (p.20-21) is compressed — practices 1-2 barely visible, 3-4 share one slide
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
Make the leap, take the lead: Tech strategies for innovation and growth
“A well-architected analytical thought-leadership deck with a strong MECE pillar (Replatform/Reframe/Reach) and quantified narrative — use it as a teaching example for pillar design and action-titling, but not for opening hook or closing CTA.”
↓ The headline insight (5x growth gap) is buried until p.6 — the cover (p.1) and opening context (p.2) waste the highest-attention real estate.
74
title quality
Reimagining the Agenda
“A competently structured three-act survey readout whose analytical middle is a solid Storymakers teaching example, but whose missing thesis-up-front and collapsed recommendation act make it a cautionary tale for closings rather than a full exemplar.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: cover (p.1) and TOC (p.2) don't state the answer, so the reader waits until p.11 to see the recommendation framing
74
title quality
The “new” rules of engagement
“A solid survey-report deck with strong action titles and a readable tension-release arc, but it leads with context rather than the answer and under-delivers on the close — use p.7-12 as a teaching example of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ p.4 and p.5 are near-duplicate 'key message' slides up front — redundancy dilutes the opening
74
title quality
2023 Post Parcel industry trends
“A well-evidenced industry point-of-view with a clean three-act skeleton and strong declarative middle, but it opens with credentials and closes with a teaser — use the diagnostic section (p.10-15) as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — 4 of the first 5 slides are credentials/thought-leadership, and the core answer ('Total Enterprise Reinvention') does not appear until p.20
74
title quality
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“A solid insight-driven survey summary with a strong paradox hook and numerate titles, but it stops at analysis and never prescribes action — use p.3/p.11 as examples of tension-framing, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck stops at diagnosis (p.13) with no recommendation, roadmap, or 'what companies should do' slide
74
title quality
US Mail Volumes to 2020
“A classic BCG analytical build-up with excellent numeric action titles in the middle but a procedural opening and topic-labelled recommendation — use p9–p19 and p26–p33 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Procedural opening — p2–p6 are objectives/approach/segmentation with zero stakes; the 15% headline is delayed to p9
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
Mastering Marketing Measurement
“A competent BCG thought-leadership deck with strong quantified action titles in its benchmark half, but the narrative doubles back on itself and closes on a soft 'getting started' frame rather than a sharp recommendation - use pp.10-15 as a teaching example for data-driven action titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ Structural redundancy: the six steps are introduced on pp.4-8 and then re-litigated on pp.9-15 without a clear distinction between 'what leaders do' and 'why it works'
74
title quality
A New Generation of Chinese Consumers Reshaping the Luxury Market
“A solid, data-disciplined market study with clean MECE architecture and strong numeric action titles, but it opens too slowly and closes on topic-label slides — use its segmentation chapter (p.9-14) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the answer: 5 pages of front-matter before any data, and the BLUF ('two priority segments + five practices') doesn't land until p.14 / p.37
74
title quality
HFS Top 10 Healthcare Provider
“A competent analyst-report-as-deck with genuinely strong action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis, uses topical section dividers, and ends on a sponsor profile — use pp.14-32 as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall structure.”
↓ Executive summary buried at p.16 instead of opening the deck — violates answer-first; reader has no thesis through the first 15 pages
74
title quality
Foodservice Market Monitor
“A competent analytical market monitor with strong metric-led action titles, but it lacks a Storymakers spine — use p.7-p.13 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No sharpened Complication or central Question: the deck never states what decision the reader must make, so 'Value Creation levers' on p.27 lands as a marketing pivot, not a resolution.
74
title quality
European Banking Barometer 2015
“A competently written industry barometer with strong per-slide action titles and a tight three-message exec summary, but it buries no recommendation and ends on 'Contacts' — use it as a teaching example for declarative titles and connector-title chaining, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or implications slide — the deck ends on p44 data and then 'Contacts'/'Appendix', with zero call-to-action
74
title quality
Pulse of Fintech H1 2021
“A well-organized analytical reference report with strong stat-led titles in its core, but it is a market-data digest rather than a Storymakers deck — use its action titles and stat-led section dividers as a teaching example, not its overall structure or its non-existent close.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.66 data table then About/Contacts; zero 'so what should investors/operators do' slide
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
Pivoting to a High Quality Growth of Clinical Trials in China PharmaDJ x L.E.K. Clinical Development Report
“A competent, survey-driven thought-leadership report with a clear four-pillar spine and numerate titles, but it builds analytically and then fails to land — use its Act 1 setup (pp.3, 5-12) as a teaching example of thesis-plus-proof, not its resolution.”
↓ Resolution act is effectively one slide (p.48) — no prioritized recommendations, no 'so what for pharma X' translation, and no decision framework.
74
title quality
Covid 19: Briefing Materials
“A high-quality McKinsey briefing document with strong analytical craftsmanship and action-title discipline, but structurally a report not a story — useful as a teaching example for slide-level writing and quantified callouts, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Recommendation is buried at p.41-42 and limited to 'operating-model speed' — too narrow relative to the humanitarian, economic, and operational problems framed earlier
74
title quality
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
“A rigorous DECC-commissioned diagnostic with answer-first framing and quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the gap' instead of 'here is what to do' — use pages 4, 12, 15, and 28 as Storymakers exemplars of metric-led titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — deck ends on a conditional frame (p.61 'What you would need to believe...') and dissolves into appendix
74
title quality
Reinventing Construction Higher Productivity
“A solid MGI extract with strong quantified opening and clean action-title style, but repeated CONTENTS dividers and a hedged close make it a better teaching example for title-writing than for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ Three identical 'CONTENTS' slides (p.2, p.7, p.11) substitute for proper pillared dividers and break narrative momentum
74
title quality
Transportation Warehousing Sector
“A disciplined McKinsey diagnostic with strong MECE numbering and metric-laden action titles, but the recommendation is under-staged at p.22 and the deck loses its arc in the back third — use the p.8-20 problem-and-evidence sequence as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing is an appendix dump: p.39-40 'Other:' case studies sit outside the 1-5 challenge framework and replace what should be a 'so what / next steps' slide.
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