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
374 matching · page 14 / 16
25
closing
Private financing of rolling stock
“A well-structured analytical study with strong MECE pillars and metric-rich titles, but it reads as a research report rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide in the opening — the answer is delayed until p.8
25
closing
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4 2022
“A competent quarterly market bulletin with a strong opening and quotable callouts, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title openings and TCO framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.21–23 with three identical 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables, then contacts, then 'Thank you' — zero recommendations or implications for OEMs/policymakers.
25
closing
2019 APAC Hospital Priority Study Overview
“A competent analytical-overview deck with strong action titles in the body but a weak opening and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline writing on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution: deck ends on an open question (p.10) and contact slide (p.11) with zero recommendations or implications for MedTech players
25
closing
Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Spring 2019
“A solid analytical market-update deck with above-average action titles and a real attempt at tension on p.9-10, but it has no recommendation act and ends in administrative pages — useful as an example of strong title craft, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends with team bios, contacts, methodology and a logo (p.11-15)
25
closing
THE WORLD’S RESPONSE TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE
“A competent survey-results dossier with a useful early summary and strong callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar because every page is titled as a topic and there is no recommendation to land — use the callouts as a teaching example of insight sentences, not the deck structure.”
↓ Titles are uniformly topic labels, not insights — p.6 'COUNTRIES WITH STRONGEST OPINIONS' and p.11 'COUNTRIES WITH STRONGEST OPINIONS ON THEIR OWN RESPONSE' describe the chart, not the finding
25
closing
Nielsen Fan Insights
“A competent data-reporting deck with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, but not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.17 'Thank you!' with zero call to action
25
closing
API Trends
“A short trend-briefing deck with decent data points but no narrative spine — useful as a counter-example showing how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act flatten a story into a list.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1-3 establish context but never name a Complication or Question, so the audience has no reason to lean in
25
closing
The individual health insurance market in 2023
“A solid analytical market briefing with disciplined, number-led action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 5–12 to teach insight-bearing titles, not the deck's overall arc, which lacks Complication, pillars, and Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so-what' — deck ends on p. 12 data and a wordmark (p. 13)
25
closing
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A credible trend-survey report mis-cast as a deck — useful as a cautionary example of how strong evidence and good callouts can still fail Storymakers when titles are topic labels and the closing is a URL.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on a blockchain chart (p.16) and a URL (p.17)
25
closing
Deloitte 2019 Industry 4.0 Readiness Survey
“A tidy four-pillar benchmark excerpt with solid action titles in the middle but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — useful as a teaching example of parallel-pillar analytical slides, not as a full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or «so what» slide — the deck ends on Methodology (p.8) with zero call to action
25
closing
ipsos the perils of perception 2024
“A competent research-findings report with a clear thesis but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of how strong opening callouts and one well-titled correlation slide (p.35) get drowned by question-as-title data dumps and a missing recommendations act.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights - p.13/14/15 all share the same interrogative title with no takeaway
25
closing
Ipsos Global Happiness Index 2025 1
“A solid research-data report with two strong insight titles but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 7-9 as examples of good action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at heatmaps (p.19-20) and jumps straight to Methodology — no synthesis, recommendation, or implication slide
25
closing
Global Advisor War in Ukraine
“A competent survey-findings report with MECE-ish pillars but no narrative arc — use it as a cautionary example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not verbs: p.3, p.7, p.9, p.12 all read as chart captions rather than insights
25
closing
Ipsos Global Advisor Earth Day 2023 Full Report WEB
“A competent Ipsos research tour with above-average action titles and pillar dividers, but it ends in a methodology-and-thank-you whimper with no recommendation — use the middle title craft as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends on p.44 "THANK YOU" and p.45 "ABOUT IPSOS" with zero so-what
25
closing
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
25
closing
ey connecting the dots m a deals in technology services in 2024
“A competent banker landscape report with strong action titles and tight analytical density, but it is a data brief — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it lacks a stakes-setting opening, MECE pillars and any closing recommendation.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on team_bio (p.9) and methodology/disclaimer, leaving the reader with data but no action
25
closing
MSDL 4Q23 Earnings Presentation
“A competent investor earnings deck whose callouts do the storytelling its titles refuse to — useful as a teaching example of how action callouts can rescue topic-titled slides, but not a Storymakers exemplar at the deck level.”
↓ Two disclaimer pages (p.2-3) before any thesis — opening real estate is wasted
25
closing
ey og q2 2021 price point client deck
“A competent quarterly market briefing with strong callouts and quantified analysis, but it stops at 'here is what we see' and never reaches 'here is what to do' — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and editorial pull-quotes, not for storymaking structure or action titles.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends in 4 appendix slides plus contacts, with zero recommendation or 'what to do about it'
25
closing
Nielsen 2022 Audio Today How America Listens Jun22 FINAL
“A data-driven advocacy deck for radio that opens with a strong hook and insight-bearing titles but has no complication, no recommendation, and ends in an appendix — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never poses a tension for advertisers nor recommends an action
25
closing
mi daily gtm us
“This is JPMorgan's quarterly Guide to the Markets reference chartbook, not a persuasive consulting deck — it is best-in-class as a data atlas but a poor Storymakers exemplar; mine individual callouts (pp.16, 29, 41, 65) as examples of insight-bearing pull-quotes, but do not use the deck's structure as a narrative model.”
↓ Zero answer-first opening: pp.1-5 give no thesis or stakes, just cover/team/TOC and two unframed S&P charts
25
closing
jpmc esg report 2021
“A polished ESG disclosure report, not a story-driven deck — useful as a reference for quantified callouts and pillar dividers, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with topics, never states a thesis, and ends in appendix.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — most slides in the first 25 use topic-label headlines with no verb or claim (p.5, p.6, p.7, p.14, p.20, p.21, etc.)
25
closing
Barclays H1 2023 Review of Shareholder Activism 002 1
“A data-rich but structurally flat market review — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts and geographic MECE, but a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation gut the Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends at p.15 and transitions straight to contacts + appendix.
22
closing
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A competent industry research report with a logical value-chain spine and pockets of real insight titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close, and too many topic-label titles — useful as a case study in how to rewrite breadcrumb titles into action titles, not as a model of narrative structure.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide — the reader must read 16+ pages before any synthesis, and none ever arrives
22
closing
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