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 27 / 27
15
closing
Global IPO Watch 2022
“A competent quarterly data bulletin with strong numbers and a thesis-bearing p.2 callout, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on action titles and ends without a recommendation — useful as a counter-example of why topic titles + appendix-as-ending kills narrative.”
↓ Zero recommendation or 'so what' — the deck ends on league tables and a disclaimer (p.12-14) with no implication for issuers, investors, or advisors
15
closing
Digital Revolution Awards
“A two-part thought-leadership compendium with strong callouts and a few sharp action titles in the first half, but absent thesis, broken pillar promise, and a missing recommendation make it unfit as a Storymakers exemplar — mine individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call to action — deck ends at p.36 on the Bain logo with no synthesis slide
15
closing
Halifax 2024 FINAL 3
“A rigorous IPSOS public-opinion data report with MECE bones but no story arc — useful as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act reduce even strong research to a reference document, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are ~80% topic labels with colon-suffix pattern (p.22–31 all read 'Confidence in Government Response: X'; p.44–62 all read 'World Influencers: X') — the reader has to decode every chart
15
closing
Ipsos Issues Index Mar25 Charts
“A competently executed monthly data tracker, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide flatten genuinely interesting trend data into a chart catalogue.”
↓ No thesis or 'what changed this month' on the opening — the reader has to assemble the story themselves from 16 individual trend charts
15
closing
Second Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard investor-relations earnings deck — competent as an IR document but a weak Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a negative example of topic-label titling and appendix-as-ending, not as a structural model.”
↓ No thesis slide anywhere — reader must assemble the quarter's story from raw tables (p.4–13)
15
closing
Third Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard Gartner earnings/IR deck — competent as a reference document but a near-anti-pattern for Storymakers, useful only as a 'before' example to demonstrate why topic titles and appendix-heavy structures fail to tell a story.”
↓ Zero action titles across 27 pages — every header is a topic label, violating the most basic Storymakers principle
15
closing
mi guide to alternatives
“A best-in-class market reference compendium that is structurally the opposite of a Storymakers deck — use it to teach chart density and MECE asset-class coverage, but cite it as a counter-example for action titles, SCQA openings, and closing recommendations.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are cover/team/TOC/two charts, with no thesis or stakes established
15
closing
immobilienfonds 20231231 en
“A reference booklet of peer benchmarks dressed as a deck — useful as raw material but a weak Storymakers exemplar; use only p.4 as a teaching case for insight titles, and treat the rest as a counter-example of topic-label dumps.”
↓ No thesis or executive summary in the first 3 slides — the reader never learns why this deck exists
12
closing
HR Pulse Survey Presentation of results
“A competently organized survey reference document, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a negative example of how topic-ordered analytical dumps bury the insight and skip the recommendation act entirely.”
↓ Zero recommendations or 'so what' slides across 59 pages — the deck is 49 consecutive analyze_data slides with no resolution act
12
closing
International Women's Day 2023 full report
“A clean, well-segmented IPSOS research report that leads with findings but ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of disciplined section architecture and well-written callouts, but a cautionary example of titles-as-survey-questions and missing 'so what' resolution.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.16, p.17, p.18, p.19, p.20 all share the title 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?'
8
closing
gol 6
“This is a financial-product fact sheet with disclaimers, not a Storymakers consulting narrative — useful only as a counter-example of what happens when a document has no action titles, no arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are entirely absent — every page header is a product code or firm name (p1-11), so the deck has no insight scaffolding