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
635 matching · page 25 / 27
22
closing
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Philippines
“A competent country-profile excerpt from a regional atlas with good action-title discipline on the data slides, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 3, 4 and 6 as teaching cases for quantified action titles, and use the whole chapter as a counter-example of an analytical tour that never commits to an SCQA arc or recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA or recommendation anywhere — the chapter is pure atlas, with p.2 'Country overview' as a topic label rather than a question or complication
22
closing
The CMO Survey The Highlights and Insights Report February 2022
“A well-titled, well-segmented industry survey report — useful as a teaching example for declarative action titles and callout discipline, but not as a Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis, no MECE argument, and no recommendation.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck ends at p.93 on a cover page with zero 'so what' for the CMO reader
22
closing
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
22
closing
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
22
closing
Venture Pulse Q3 2024
“A reference-grade quarterly intelligence report with unusually disciplined action titles and MECE geographic structure, but no SCQA arc and no close — useful as a teaching example for action titles and parallel section design, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No closing recommendation or synthesis — the deck ends at p.91 with regional data and rolls straight into 'About us' (pp.92–94) and disclaimers (pp.95–96)
22
closing
Good as Gold: Resilience and Continued Attractiveness of the Global K-12 Sector
“A solid narrowing-funnel thought-leadership piece with mostly good action titles and a clean 3-pillar structure, but it buries the recommendation under a 9-slide identically-titled data dump — use the p.3-22 analytical build as a teaching example, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides (p.26-34) with the literally identical title 'Overall growth in the premium segment…(X of 9)' — the single biggest narrative failure, forcing the reader to do all the synthesis
22
closing
Technology Trends Outlook 2022
“A high-quality 14-trend research compendium with a strong data-led opening but no closing synthesis or recommendation — use the per-trend micro-template and the p.3/p.5 opening as teaching examples, not the overall deck structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis — the deck terminates on the last trend's appendix (pp.180-184) with zero cross-trend wrap-up or recommendation
22
closing
GEM Outlook 2021-2025 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC market-outlook research deck with disciplined action titles but no recommendation arc - useful as a Storymakers exemplar for slide-level title craft and benchmark framing, not for opening hook, Act-3 payoff, or closing call-to-action.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide: deck ends p.31 -> appendix -> 'Thank you.' (p.34) with zero implications for an HK operator or advertiser
22
closing
Namibia National Budget 2024-25
“Topic-labeled government budget walkthrough with no SCQA arc and a non-existent close — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and answer-first structure fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title-as-topic on every slide — there is not a single declarative action title in 25 pages
22
closing
POPULISM IN 2024
“A rigorous data report dressed as a deck — strong sample and a useful proprietary index, but it reads as a crosstab parade with no recommendation, so it's a counter-example for Storymakers titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p47 on a spending crosstab and then drifts into methodology and corporate boilerplate (p48-51)
22
closing
IPSOS HAPPINESS INDEX 2025
“A competent global research findings report with good front-loaded takeaways and a few sharp action titles, but it lacks pillar structure and a closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and callouts, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on contact info (p.23) with no CTA
22
closing
PREDICTIONS 2025 REPORT
“A competent annual-survey reference document that is well-structured topically but underbuilt as a Storymakers narrative — use the quadrant slides (28, 69, 71) and the early synthesis pages (6-7) as teaching exemplars, and use the rest of the deck as a counter-example of survey-question-as-title and missing-resolution.”
↓ ~40+ data slides (pp. 25-27, 34-46, 50-55, 59-64, 70-74) use the raw survey question as the title, leaving the audience to derive the 'so what'
22
closing
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? JULY 2023
“A disciplined tracker with strong callout hygiene but weak Storymakers craft — useful as a teaching example of consistent metric anchoring, not of narrative arc or action-title writing.”
↓ Action titles are nouns ('CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION: JAPAN' p24, '7 | CLIMATE CHANGE' p17) — the deck hides its own findings inside callout boxes
22
closing
2021 Five Trends Post Pandemic Leadership
“Structurally disciplined five-pillar trend brief with strong MECE dividers and evidence-heavy action titles, but it is an analytical dump without a resolution — use the pillar architecture and title style as teaching examples, not the ending.”
↓ No resolution — the deck ends on p.34 with a supply-chain stat mid-pillar, no synthesis, no recommendation, no 'what leaders should do next'
22
closing
Ipsos Populism Final February 2024
“A competent global survey readout with a strong paradox hook on p.3 that the rest of the deck fails to honor — usable as a teaching example of how survey-question titles and a missing recommendation act flatten an otherwise promising argument, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.35 title contains an unresolved template placeholder '[NOUN FOR PEOPLE FROM COUNTRY, PLURAL]' — a proofreading failure that undermines credibility
22
closing
inv research 20210422 investing and covid 19 0
“A competent Ipsos research report with a front-loaded exec summary but a topical, SCQA-free structure and no recommendation - mine p.6-9 and p.31-32 as teaching examples of insight titles, but do NOT use the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in the deck; closes on a neutral stat (p.55) then appendix and contact info (p.60)
22
closing
IEI 2024 Global Charts
“A competently organised annual research index with a summary-first opening and a handful of strong action titles, but it is an analytical readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because most titles restate survey questions and the deck ends without a recommendation or call to action.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on a data chart (p.38) then methodology, with the closing slide (p.41) reduced to a contact card
22
closing
Ipsos AI Monitor 2024 final APAC
“A well-organized syndicated research monitor with one strong thesis hook (slide 2) and clean MECE pillars, but body titles are raw survey questions and the deck ends in methodology with no recommendation — use it as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 30 of ~36 content slides use raw survey-question text as titles instead of declarative insights (e.g., p.20, p.23, p.28, p.34)
22
closing
MorganStanley
“A fund-product pitchbook with a respectable macro storytelling opener but no resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft in the macro section (pp.5-16), not as a structural Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ First 5 slides bury the lede behind cover + two disclaimers + a question title (p.4); no executive summary or thesis statement
22
closing
ey future of work 20 10
“A capabilities brochure dressed as a point of view — useful as a counter-example of how repeated taglines and noun-phrase titles erase a deck's narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides (p.4, p.6, p.7, p.8, p.9 and the callouts on p.5, p.10, p.11) repeat the identical 'Operate in two gears…' string, collapsing differentiation between sections
22
closing
Newmark May 2023 FI Conference Presentation Vf Final
“A competent fixed-income IR deck with several exemplary action titles in its middle third, but structurally it is a data walk rather than a Storymakers story — use slides 11, 14, 16, and 19 as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are pure front matter; the investable thesis ('when markets normalize we exceed peak revenues') is hidden on p.13 rather than stated on p.3 or p.4
22
closing
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself
20
closing
Capgemini Engineering Overview 2021
“A credentials brochure masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-title catalog structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative, pillars, or action titles.”
↓ Two consecutive slides (p.10 and p.11) share the identical title 'SELECTED SUCCESS STORIES' with no differentiating action title
20
closing
Everest Group Retail Services
“A reprinted analyst-badge marketing asset, not a Storymakers deck — useful only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and appendix-as-closer; do not use as an exemplar.”
↓ Pages 5-11 are labelled only «Cognizant profile (page X of 7)» — seven consecutive topic-label titles with no insight, the single worst Storymakers violation in the deck.