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 6 / 31
74
title quality
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)
74
title quality
2019 Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clear protagonist (Dynamics) and largely declarative titles, but the soft complication, over-reliance on quote slides, and uneven pillar signposting make it a useful exemplar for action-title craft — not for full Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Heavy reliance on quote_slides (p.3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20 — seven of 22 pages) substitutes voice-of-expert for analytical synthesis
74
title quality
Rail supply digitization
“A competent survey-driven thought-leadership deck with disciplined action titles and a visible four-act spine, but it diagnoses without prescribing and ends as a Pathfinder sales pitch — useful as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not for closing a story.”
↓ Closing collapses into a product pitch: p.33-36 sell the Digital Pathfinder rather than synthesize survey takeaways into a recommendation
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
Indonesia case study
“A solid analytical ITU case study with strong mid-deck action titles and clean regional MECE, but it buries the recommendation behind seven TOC reprints and a topic-label next-steps slide — use the analytical sections (p.6–28, p.40–54) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ Seven repeated 'Table of contents' slides (p.5, 17, 21, 33, 35, 55, 66) act as filler dividers instead of pillar statements — break narrative momentum without adding signal
74
title quality
International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance
“A methodical, well-titled benchmarking study with a strong analytical spine but no recommendation act - use the comparator setup (p.29-33) and cost-benchmark titles (p.39-48) as a Storymakers teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation act: the deck stops at sizing the gap (p.49) without a 'what to do' slide, owners, or a roadmap, undermining the 'call to action' promised on p.15
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
China M&A 2024 Review and Outlook
“A well-structured PwC market review with strong slide-level action titles but a weak synthesis and outlook — use slides 5, 9, 10, 17, 20 as exemplars of action-title craft, but not the deck as a whole-arc Storymakers model.”
↓ Synthesis pages 31–33 are titled 'Key messages (1)/(2)/(3)' — pure topic labels on the slides that should carry the strongest insight titles
74
title quality
China Luxury Digital Playbook
“A well-structured BCG x Tencent market study with exemplary quantified action titles in its analytical spine, but it loses Storymakers discipline exactly where it matters most - the recommendation titles go topic-label and the deck ends in 'Thank you'; use the middle (p.4-28) as a teaching example of action-title craft, not the closing.”
↓ Recommendation slides (p.43-45) are topic labels, not insights - the deck teaches action titles for 40 pages then abandons them at the punchline
74
title quality
The future of demand
“A well-structured thought-leadership deck with a clean SCQA arc and answer-first exec summary — strong Storymakers exemplar for opening/closing discipline, but the overlapping middle dividers make it a flawed template for teaching MECE pillar design.”
↓ Two middle dividers (p.6 and p.8) cover overlapping territory about customer-industry sustainability — breaks MECE
74
title quality
Unlocking alpha in deals
“A well-architected thought-leadership report with a clean SCQA arc and MECE three-pillar spine — use the divider structure and analytical action titles as a teaching example, but flag the repeated 'Call to action' titles and missing operational close as the lessons in what to fix.”
↓ Three slides (p.18, p.22, p.26) all titled 'Call to action' — a topic label repeated verbatim, the opposite of action titling
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
Generative AI: A boost for Operations
“A competent webinar deck with strong action titles and a clean close, but the four repeated agendas and question-style opener make it a useful teaching example for closing CTAs and case-study integration rather than a Storymakers exemplar of a single S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Four repeated 'Today's agenda' slides (p.3, 10, 15, 25) bloat the deck and signal a stitched-together webinar rather than a single argument
74
title quality
Blueprint for Advancing Metabolic Health
“Solid McKinsey white paper with a clean SCQA spine and one exemplary action-title slide (p.7), but the recommendation is buried and the deck trails off into quotes - useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up, not for closing the loop.”
↓ Closing collapses: p.17 'Time to put it all together' is the recommendation slide but its title is generic and there is no explicit ask, owner, or next step.
74
title quality
Perspective on Tower & Fiber
“A competent McKinsey 'perspective' brief with strong stakes-setting and mostly declarative titles, but it ends on a menu instead of a recommendation — useful as an example of opening discipline, not as a Storymakers exemplar of resolution.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7 ends on "several strategic plays available," which is a menu, not a verdict.
74
title quality
Bold moves: Leading Southeast Asia's next wave of consumer growth
“A well-crafted Bain trend report with strong action titles and transitions, but structurally a seven-trend analytical survey rather than a single-thesis recommendation deck - use it as an exemplar for title writing and section bridges, not for narrative arc or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Thesis ('bold moves') is buried until the p.10 divider - the first 9 slides read as a market primer with no argument
74
title quality
AFF 2023 HKTDC and PwC’s Joint Pulse Survey
“A competently structured survey-readout deck with strong data-bearing action titles but a weak opening and label-style dividers — useful as an example of slide-level action titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar of opening hook or pillar architecture.”
↓ Opening is wasted: cover → generic 'Introduction' (p.2) → topic divider (p.3); the thesis is never stated up front
74
title quality
IT SERVICES The Rates of Success, Goals, and Future Priorities of Digital Transformations, by Sector
“A competent BCG benchmarking note with strong answer-first opening and insight-bearing analytical titles, but it ends without a recommendation and lets its core priority section collapse into topic labels — useful as a teaching example for action-title discipline in the first half, not for full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps act — deck ends on an ESG data slide (p.16) followed only by an author contact page (p.17)
74
title quality
Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent
“Solid analytical build with a genuinely strong tension hook on p.8, but the recommendation is under-developed and the close fades into annex — use the paradox framing and country-benchmark sequence as teaching examples, not the overall structure.”
↓ Closing slide p.22 is advisory-but-vague; no explicit 'what to do Monday morning' recommendation list
74
title quality
2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
“A competent thought-leadership survey deck with strong action titles in the analytical middle but weak structural titles and a buried recommendation — use the body-slide titling as an exemplar, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Structural slides abdicate the action-title discipline: p.3-4 both titled 'Executive summary' and p.33-34 both titled 'Key takeaways for business leaders' — no insight surfaced in the title
74
title quality
Women @ Work 2023: 7 The Gender Equality Leaders are benefiting from doing it right
“A well-organized thematic research report with unusually strong section dividers and insight-bearing body titles, but generic 'Executive summary' and 'Our recommendations' bookends blunt both the opener and the close — use the section dividers and body slides as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'Executive summary' (pp.3-5) and three titled 'Our recommendations' (pp.35-37) — the most important bookend slides use topic labels instead of insights
74
title quality
2019 Holiday Survey of Consumers Keeping the good times rolling
“A competently titled but structurally flat research-findings deck — use its slide-level action titles and quantified callouts as teaching examples, but not its architecture, which buries the recommendation and ends on a methodology slide.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — the 'How to win the holidays' section (p.29-31) is only 3 slides and describes high-spender demographics rather than prescribing retailer actions
74
title quality
ALTAGAMMA 2018 WORLDWIDE LUXURY MARKET MONITOR
“A data-rich industry monitor with disciplined numeric action titles and an early-stated thesis, but it buries the 'so what' under an analytical sprawl and fades into a vague purpose exhortation — use pp. 2, 11, 18 and 26 as teaching examples of insight titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Resolution collapses into one vague slide (p. 30 'Be driven by purpose...') with no prioritized moves or owner/timeline — weak 'so what' for a 30-page build-up