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
737 matching · page 26 / 31
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
Tech highlights from 2022—in eight charts
“A competent year-end chart-roundup with strong per-slide data discipline but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles (see p.4) but not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No governing thesis: the cover (p.1) and opener (p.2) never state what the eight charts collectively argue about 2022 in tech
25
closing
The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it
“Competent McKinsey explainer that opens well and uses number-led titles, but it is an analytical breakdown not a Storymakers narrative — useful as an exemplar of clean BLUF openings and quantified action titles, not for full S→C→A→R structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'what this means for you' slide — deck jumps from STEM funding (p.7) straight to author bios (p.8).
25
closing
Multi-regional transmission model
“A competent analytical build-up of a proprietary simulation tool that collapses in the final act — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and quantified callouts, but a cautionary tale on section architecture, topic-label titles, and the absence of a closing recommendation.”
↓ Broken section architecture: Roman numerals skip II and V, 'IV' appears twice (p.30 and p.33), and p.35 is a one-character divider ('U') — this alone signals the deck never got a final pass
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 trustworthiness index 2023
“A well-structured data reference report but a weak Storymakers exemplar — use pp.4/10/14 as an example of clean sectioning, but not as a model for narrative, titling, or close.”
↓ No thesis slide — pp.1-4 are cover/TOC/intro/divider with zero insight asserted before data begins on p.5
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
Royal Foundation Attitudes to Early Childhood Key Findings PUBLIC 150622 41
“A competent research-findings deck with strong action titles and a clean S->C opening, but it is an analytical walk-through that never lands a recommendation — use the first 7 slides as a teaching example of findings framing, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends on a data table (p.16) and a Contact page (p.17)
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
wai ipsos innovation misperception epidemic
“A thesis-forward research note that lands its hook in the first two slides but then devolves into a data tour with no recommendation — use p.1-2 as a teaching example of strong openings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.13 demographics/usage table and then two 'About' bios (p.14-15) with zero recommendations
25
closing
Ipsos Global AI 2023 Report NZ Release 19.07.2023
“A competently structured survey-results report with strong navigation but no narrative — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titling and missing resolution, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are pure topic labels repeated across multiple slides (e.g., 'Feelings about AI' on p.10/11/12/13) — zero insight conveyed by the title alone
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
25
closing
Global Report What Worries the World May 23 WEB
“A competent recurring tracker report with strong evidence in the callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution act — useful as a teaching example of what NOT to do at the title and closing layers, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — the action sits in the callout (p.9, p.13–19, p.22–28)
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
Dissecting the 2021/22 Annual Budget Speech
“A reference-style budget recap with comprehensive data but no story, no point of view, and topic-label titles — useful as a counter-example of analytical dumping, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Repetitive boilerplate titles: 17 of 19 slides start with '2022/23 Annual Budget Speech:' — zero declarative action titles
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
ey og q3 2020 price point client deck
“A competent periodic market-outlook brief with one good editorial instinct (the 'divergence' theme) that it fails to pay off — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and an unresolved thesis flatten an otherwise well-sequenced analysis.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Market fundamentals' appears 3x (p.5–7) and 'Gas price outlook' 2x (p.10–11) with no differentiation
25
closing
ey mobility consumer index mci 2022 study
“A solid annual-research findings deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it is an analytical report rather than a Storymakers-style argument — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles and quantified callouts, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck ends at p10 'Concerns' + p11 demographics with no recommendation, implication, or call to action
25
closing
ey sports engagement index january 2025
“A competent research-report deck with strong action titles in the analytical core, but it is a topic-organized data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for headline writing, not for arc construction.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on p.18 'we continue to track many other sports' with zero recommendations or implications for sports bodies, sponsors, or rights holders
25
closing
ey ivca monthly pe vc roundup february 2023
“A competent monthly data roundup that is structurally a reference document, not a story — useful as an example of clean section dividers and metric-led callouts, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis-led opening, no Complication-Resolution arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or outlook close — deck ends in EY service marketing (p.26–31) and contacts, abandoning the reader after the data
25
closing
ey uli fow global survey 2020 report
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with strong headline discipline but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide; deck dissolves into 'About ULI / About EY' on p.24-25 instead of resolving the argument
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'