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 26 / 27
20
closing
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
20
closing
Scott Anthony Press Kit
“A functional press kit, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful only as a negative example of topic-label titles and a missing CTA close.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'SPEAKING TOPICS' (pp. 3-5) — no differentiation, no progression, reads as a topic dump
20
closing
Mergers and Acquisitions in LatAm: Evolution and prospects
“A well-sourced LatAm M&A market scan with strong action titles and credible data, but it reads as an analytical report rather than a Storymakers deck — use it as an example of declarative titling and country deep-dive structure, not as a model for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No closing recommendation, outlook, or 'so what' slide — deck terminates on Peru analysis (p.30) then bio + disclaimer
20
closing
WORLD AFFAIRS
“A polished public-opinion survey report with strong section scaffolding but weak Storymakers DNA — it dumps findings instead of telling a story; use the priority-vs-preparation gap section (p32-35) as a teaching example of derived-metric analysis, but not the structure or titling.”
↓ No executive answer up front: p3 'Key findings' is one page with a single 76% stat and no thesis, forcing the reader to assemble the message themselves
20
closing
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? 2024
“A competently produced survey-data release with disciplined callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution; useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Action titles are nouns, not insights — 'Current Economic Situation' repeats verbatim on p.35–46 instead of saying what each country shows
20
closing
IPSOS GLOBAL ADVISOR Global Perceptions of Healthcare
“A competently executed survey-results report that mistakes a question-by-question data walk for a narrative — useful as a counter-example of how repeating the survey question as the slide title kills any Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: zero Complication or Resolution slides — the deck is 9 consecutive analyze_data pages with no synthesis
20
closing
IPSOS GLOBAL HEALTH SERVICE MONITOR 2023
“A competently structured survey-monitor report — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it labels topics instead of arguing a thesis and ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — deck ends on a methodology page (p.44) and a brand slide (p.45)
20
closing
Ipsos report Single use plastics
“A competently executed but narratively flat survey readout — strong as a reference document for the underlying data, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questions, the structure is a topic dump, and the deck ends without ever telling the reader what to do.”
↓ No synthesis or recommendation slide anywhere — the deck ends on p.31 with a producer-fee benchmark and jumps straight to methodology
20
closing
Global Top 100 Companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual ranking publication with a few model action titles but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how a research-report format collapses Storymakers structure, not as an exemplar of it.”
↓ No recommendation, no 'so what', no closing synthesis — deck ends in raw rankings (p.36-40) then Contact (p.41)
20
closing
ey digital survey shaping the new normal
“A competent, well-titled regional-survey topic dump with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar of action-title discipline, not of story structure.”
↓ No closing synthesis or recommendation — deck ends on a data slide (p41) and a 'Contact us' (p42), with zero 'so what' for the reader
20
closing
ey ivca monthly pe vc roundup january 2023
“Competent monthly market-intelligence roundup with rich data but pure topic-label headlines and no thesis, build, or close — useful as a teaching example of why action titles matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five consecutive slides (p.21-25) share the identical title 'Spotlight: PE/VC credit investment deal trends' — readers can't navigate the build
20
closing
article monthlymarketmonitor july23
“A polished cross-asset reference monitor masquerading as a deck — useful as a data appendix template, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no opening thesis, no MECE pillars, no resolution, and almost exclusively topic-label titles.”
↓ Zero narrative arc — no Situation/Complication framing in the opening, no synthesis slide anywhere, no recommendation at the close (p.40 → glossary)
20
closing
NCM SNCM Y 2022 SNCMP
“A client-meeting status update built backwards — solution-first then evidence-dump, ending without a recommendation; use the action-titled streaming-data slides (p.44-46, p.56) as a teaching example, but treat the overall structure as a counter-example for SCQA.”
↓ Closes with a data table (p.62 'Quick Fade of Top Movies') and a thank-you slide — no recommendation, no next steps, no ask
18
closing
Sustainability Corporate Citizenship
“A compliance-grade ESG disclosure with a decent MECE pillar skeleton but no SCQA, no action titles, and no resolution — usable as a teaching example of pillar structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Front-matter bloat: 3 of the first 5 slides (cover, forward-looking disclaimer, ToC) before any substance, and 'Overview' (p.4) carries no thesis
18
closing
Digital Transformation NJ
“A credentials-led government capabilities pitch with strong case-study evidence but no SCQA arc, no NJ thesis, and a «Thank you» ending — useful as a teaching example of why action titles and a closing recommendation matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No NJ-specific thesis or stakes anywhere in the first five slides — opens with Deloitte's credentials (p.2) instead of the client's situation
18
closing
Ipsos Issues Index March 2025
“A disciplined tracker data report with strong callouts but zero Storymakers craft — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation flatten genuinely interesting findings.”
↓ Cover/opening is dead weight: p.1, p.2, p.3 are all variants of the title with no thesis, no headline finding, and no chart of the month
18
closing
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? 2023
“Competent monthly survey-tracker report with strong stat callouts but topic-label titles, non-MECE sectioning, and no synthesis or call to action - useful as a 'before' teaching example for action-title rewriting and SCQA closure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution: deck closes on five country snapshots (p.24-28) and methodology (p.29) with zero synthesis, implication, or recommendation
18
closing
Ipsos Issues Index Jan25
“A competent recurring data tracker, not a Storymakers artifact — use its callout discipline and parallel segmentation grid as small-scale teaching examples, but treat the overall structure (no thesis, topic-label titles, no recommendation) as a cautionary case of analytical dump dressed as a deck.”
↓ Titles p.2–3 are literally just 'January 2025' — two consecutive slides with a date as their header is a failure mode
18
closing
Education Monitor 2024 Ipsos
“A competent research-monitor publication with a strong answer-first opening and several model action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 4-14 and pp. 20/46 as teaching examples of insight titling, and use the pp. 47-58 sequence as a cautionary example of MECE failure and of a deck that analyses without ever recommending.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on methodology (p.73) and 'For more information' (p.74), with no recommendation or call to action
18
closing
ipsos predictions 2025 survey report
“A topically MECE survey read-out with a strong unease setup and three excellent analytical 2x2s, but the action titles are mostly survey prompts and the deck ends in methodology — use slides 28/69/71 as title-quality exemplars, not the deck as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ Closing is an appendix dump (Methodology p.75-76, 'For more information' p.77) with zero synthesis, recommendation, or call back to the opening unease theme
15
closing
The shape of retail: Consumers and the new normal
“A raw survey appendix masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of what happens when action titles are left as question stems and the close is a contacts page.”
↓ Titles on p.3–p.6 are verbatim survey questions rather than insights — the reader must infer the takeaway
15
closing
The CMO Survey Marketing in a Post Covid Era
“A competent annual research report with above-average chart titles but essentially no story arc — useful as a teaching example of strong metric-led action titles in the middle, and as a cautionary example of how topic-driven structure and missing opening/closing acts turn insight-rich data into a reference document rather than a persuasive deck.”
↓ No executive answer up front: p.2 is labeled 'executive_summary' but titled only 'The CMO Survey' — no pyramid-principle lead, no governing thesis
15
closing
SAP Innovation Awards 2022 Entry Pitch Deck
“A template-driven awards submission with strong KPI evidence but no narrative spine — useful as a cautionary example of how rigid submission templates kill action titles and destroy the closing act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Fourteen consecutive slides titled 'Additional Information' (p.15–p.30) — the deck abandons titling discipline entirely in its second half
15
closing
MARKET DATA FROM SECONDARY SOURCES
“A secondary-research data tour disguised as a deck — useful as a counter-example of methodology-first structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation anywhere — the deck is a methodology demonstration ('here is how we pull secondary data'), not an argument