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
635 matching · page 9 / 27
72
title quality
Out @ Work Barometer
“A competently titled survey readout with strong individual insight slides (especially the p.11 paradox) but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends at p.13 on a diagnosis ('missing out on talent')
72
title quality
Shaping Future Indian ME
“A polished industry-outlook report with strong sector-level action titles and a clear two-pillar spine, but the recommendation is a single afterthought slide — use the sector deep-dives (p.20–26) and the headroom build (p.10–11, p.27) as Storymakers exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Recommendation reduced to one slide (p.43) with a topic-label title and no prioritization, owner, or sequencing
72
title quality
The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight (7th Edition)
“A competent BCG industry-insights report with strong data-bearing action titles, but narratively it is an analytical dump without an SCQA resolution — use pp.9, 11, 14, 18 as teaching examples for action-title quality, not the overall structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide: thesis only hinted at on p.6 after 5 front-matter/context pages
72
title quality
Evaluating NYC media sector
“A competent sector-scan deliverable with strong slide-level action titles but weak narrative architecture — use the analytical slides (p.6-25) as a teaching example for quantified action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ 10 redundant 'Agenda' slides (p.5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 31, 37) — roughly 24% of the deck is navigation chrome
72
title quality
Digital consumer spending India
“A structurally disciplined market-sizing + sector-diagnosis deck with a strong thesis-forward opening and clean MECE pillars, but it buries its recommendation in a duplicated intervention slide and fades into case studies — use the sector-diagnosis spine (p11-21) as a Storymakers exemplar, not the closing act.”
↓ p24 and p25 share the exact same title 'Key interventions for driving growth in digital transactions' — the central recommendation slide is duplicated instead of sharpened
72
title quality
Transform Special Situations Index
“Short analytical index-release with a strong hook and mostly declarative titles but no resolution - use p.1-p.2 as an opening-hook exemplar, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No Resolution act - deck ends on p.7 sector data with zero recommendation, implication, or 'what leaders should do'
72
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Malaysia
“A competent country-chapter excerpt with strong quantified action titles but no resolution - useful as an example of headline-metric titling, not of full Storymakers arc construction.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide - deck ends on the funding-decline chart (p.7)
72
title quality
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Thailand
“A competent market-intelligence chapter with strong insight-titling but no SCQA arc and no recommendation — use slides 3, 5, and 6 as a teaching example of quantified action titles, not the deck structure.”
↓ No complication or recommendation — the deck is S → A with no C or R, so it reads as a briefing not a story
72
title quality
Introduction to Bain and Report on Resilience
“A well-argued Bain keynote with a memorable hook and a complete S->C->A->R arc, but a slow credentials-first opening, an unfulfilled 'Five Myths' promise, and a limp 'Thank you' close keep it from being a top Storymakers exemplar - useful for teaching declarative titles (P7, P19) and proprietary-index positioning, not for teaching deck architecture.”
↓ First four slides are Bain credentials/speakers/divider - the real narrative doesn't start until P5 and the thesis doesn't crystallize until P7
72
title quality
Insights from the leading edge of generative AI adoption
“Solid Deloitte thought-leadership survey deck with strong action-title craft in the middle but a diffuse opening and a repetitive four-slide close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative structure.”
↓ Four closing slides titled identically 'Next: Looking ahead' (p.25, 27, 29, 30) — reader cannot distinguish the recommendations or track progress
72
title quality
Global Employee Survey – Key findings and implications for ICMIF
“A competent research-findings deck with strong mid-section action titles but a methodology-heavy opening and a non-committal close — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening wastes 6 slides on methodology before stating any insight — the thesis should lead, not follow the demographics
72
title quality
2022 Global Alternative Fund Survey
“A competently-titled survey report that delivers data point-by-point but has no opening thesis and no closing recommendation — useful as a benchmark for action-title craft on individual pages, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — the deck ends at p.48 on an ESG data point and cuts to contacts, violating the R in SCQA/S→C→A→R
72
title quality
GenAI wealth asset management
“A competent survey-highlights report with strong per-slide action titles and a coherent analytical middle, but it's not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.7–19 to teach stat-led action titles, not the overall structure, which lacks a complication, named pillars, and a closing recommendation.”
↓ Five separate 'Contents' slides (p.2, p.4, p.6, p.20, p.23) with no pillar labels act as filler dividers rather than MECE signposts
72
title quality
Navigating Disruption Financial Services
“A well-researched case-study compendium with disciplined 'from X to Y' action titles, but it opens with methodology and closes without a recommendation — use the case-study slides as a title-writing exemplar, not the overall arc.”
↓ No synthesis slide — after 8 cases (p.9-16) there is no cross-case pattern, scorecard, or 'what this means for incumbents'
72
title quality
GenAI Survey 2024
“A competent survey-findings deck with above-average action titles but no narrative resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline-writing on data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on a regulation stat (p.12) with zero «recommended actions» or «what to do Monday morning» slide
72
title quality
Education: 2021 Deal Round-up and Trends to Watch Out For in 2022
“A competent analytical data round-up with strong declarative titles in the middle, but it is a briefing not a story — missing thesis, missing synthesis, and ending on a contact card instead of a recommendation; use slides 2, 4, 10, 13 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.15 data + p.16 'Connect with us' — there is no recommendation, no 'what to watch in 2022' payoff despite the title promising it
72
title quality
Hospital Priorities 2022 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A competent survey-findings report with above-average action titles and clean pillar tagging, but it is structured as an analytical dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for headline-driven chart pages, not for narrative architecture or closing.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends on p.29 financial analysis then jumps to 'Connect with us' (p.30) — the promised 'Strategic Implications for Pharma' are never delivered as a recommendation slide
72
title quality
Hospital Priorities 2023 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A well-researched, well-titled data-read on Chinese hospital priorities that reads like a survey report rather than a Storymakers narrative — use it as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for story architecture.”
↓ No answer/resolution act: p.14 asks 'How can pharmas interact more productively with hospital customers?' but no recommendation slide follows
72
title quality
APAC Hospital Insights 2023
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and clean three-pillar MECE structure, but it ends in firm marketing instead of a recommendation — use sections 2-4 as a teaching example for action titles and pyramid sequencing, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No 'So what?' resolution slide — the deck ends at p.27 (last agenda divider) and jumps straight to firm credentials on p.28-30; no synthesis of implications for healthcare providers, MedTech, or pharma
72
title quality
A future that works: AI, Automation, employment, and productivity
“A keynote-style thought-leadership deck with strong analytical chapter (p.13-18) but a missing Resolution act — use the middle as a Storymakers exemplar of action-titled analysis, not as a model for narrative close.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closing slide p.22 'some real challenges to address' re-states the problem instead of resolving it
72
title quality
Brazil Digital Report
“A solid analytical landscape report with disciplined section structure and several strong declarative titles, but it reads as a research summary rather than a Storymakers deck — use the talent section's titling as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No explicit recommendation or call-to-action — the deck ends on 'In summary:' (p.42) and a thank-you (p.43), violating the SCQA 'Resolution' act
72
title quality
Consumers’ sustainability sentiment and behavior before, during and after the COVID-19 crisis
“A solid analytical survey readout with disciplined number-led titles, but it's a findings catalogue rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.5-8 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure, which lacks both Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck terminates on p.26 with a demographic finding instead of a recommendation or 'implications for FMCG' slide
72
title quality
Fab Automation AI
“A competent McKinsey diagnostic with strong, metric-anchored action titles but a buried thesis and an amputated close — useful as a title-writing exemplar, not as a full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Deck ends on 'Thank you' (p.17) with no recommendation or next-steps slide — the resolution act is missing
72
title quality
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them