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 43.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
19 matching
78
closing
US consumers send mixed signals in an uncertain economy
“Tight, well-titled McKinsey insight brief with a real recommendation at the end — use the action titles and SCQA closure as a teaching example, but flag the missing pillar structure and the unflagged trade-down/splurge paradox as the gaps.”
↓ No MECE section dividers — pp.3-9 read as a topic dump rather than grouped pillars (sentiment / spending / channel)
75
closing
What if inflation rates remain at current levels? Roland Berger Institute
“A well-titled, coherent thought-leadership paper with a clear point of view at the end, but it reads as an analyst's essay rather than a Storymakers deck — use pp.2-6 as a teaching example for action titles, not as a structural template.”
↓ No 'so what' for a business audience — the deck diagnoses inflation but never translates implications into client actions
62
closing
csg investor day 2016 sru
“A competent investor-day progress report with several strong metric-led titles, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar — it lacks SCQA setup and pillar structure, so use individual action titles (p4, p8, p11) as teaching examples rather than the deck's architecture.”
↓ No Situation/Complication setup — the deck never explicitly frames why the SRU story matters before diving into metrics
55
closing
2018 Manufacturing Priorities Survey
“Solid survey-results deck with strong action-title hygiene in the middle, but it opens as a summary and closes on a shrug — useful as a teaching example for title writing, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No section dividers or MECE pillars — 8 consecutive 'industry_trends' slides read as survey-question dump rather than a structured argument
55
closing
IIF/McKinsey Cyber Resilience Survey
“A competent McKinsey survey deck with strong action titles in the diagnosis section but a buried thesis and a collapsed ending — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and quantified callouts, not as a model of full SCQA narrative architecture.”
↓ First 5 slides are all front matter and methodology; the thesis is buried — by p.5 a reader still doesn't know what the deck argues
40
closing
Streaming Video Back to Future
“A tight analytical insight deck with strong action titles slide-by-slide, but missing the opening thesis and closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for title-writing, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1 is a mood title and p.2 jumps into a chart finding with no stated question or stakes.
40
closing
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
35
closing
Saudi Arabia Banking Pulse Quarter 3, 2022
“A competent quarterly-pulse research note with strong action titles on individual slides, but it's a KPI walk-through, not a story — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and callouts, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck ends on a data table (p.18) and glossaries, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
35
closing
UAE Banking Pulse
“A competent analytical pulse report with strong declarative titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — use p.4–p.6 as a teaching example of insight-bearing action titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — the deck ends on a KPI recap (p.7) then straight into glossary
30
closing
How Can US Brands Reach Gen Z
“A well-titled but structurally incomplete insights handout — great teaching example for declarative action titles, poor exemplar for Storymakers narrative arc or MECE pillars.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — the deck asks 'what do brands need to know?' on p.2 but never answers 'therefore, do X'
30
closing
Private company outlook: Productivity
“A competent but inert survey-findings report with above-average action titles and a strong opening stat — use it as a teaching example of declarative titling, not of narrative arc, because it has no Resolution act and ends on boilerplate.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — p.12 is just another finding, then p.13 is boilerplate
30
closing
PwC’s 24th Annual Global CEO Survey
“A solid annual-survey communication piece with strong data-driven titles in the middle, but it is a thematic tour rather than a Storymakers-grade narrative — useful as a reference for action-title craft on data slides, not as an exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution or recommendation slide — the cover promises 'a leadership agenda to take on tomorrow' but the body never delivers an agenda; p.17 closes with reflection, not action
30
closing
CCPC Investments Research Sept. 2021
“A competent market-research findings deck with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide headlines, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' close: the deck ends on p.13 with another finding and then 'CONTACTS' (p.14), so the reader leaves without a call to action.
25
closing
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)
25
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Vietnam
“A descriptive country-brief excerpt with strong action titles but no resolution act — useful as a teaching example for insight-bearing titles and market-sizing pacing, not for full Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation or CTA — the deck ends on a funding data point (p.7) rather than an implication or next move
25
closing
Challenges abound Ongoing crises call for a proactive approach
“A quarterly research bulletin with a punchy opening hook and quantified data, but no Resolution and recycled titles in the middle — useful as a teaching example of how a strong Situation/Complication can be wasted when the deck never returns to the 'call to action' it promises.”
↓ P.6, p.7, p.8 all carry the same recycled title 'Automotive Disruption Radar – Issue #7' instead of the actual insight (EV offer growing, AI investment up, mobility jobs surging) — the insight lives only in the callout
25
closing
Ipsos Global Views on AI and Disinformation full report
“A well-titled Ipsos data-release deck with solid declarative findings but no SCQA arc or recommendation — useful as an exemplar of headline-stat action titles, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No 'So what?' — deck ends at p.6 with a data point, skipping any recommendation, implication, or next step
25
closing
Global Report What Worries the World Jul 23 WEB
“A monthly IPSOS tracker with solid data hygiene and a roughly MECE spine, but written as a topic inventory rather than a story — useful as a negative example of title quality and closing weakness, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes slide in the opening — covers (p.1-2) are decorative, not setup
20
closing
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