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 28 / 31
22
closing
Spring 2022 National Client Meeting
“An event-agenda deck dressed as a strategy story — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides (p.45, p.46, p.56) but a weak Storymakers exemplar overall because it has no resolution and stitches three independent narratives together.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck ends on Netflix-content trends (p.59–62) and 'Thank you!' (p.65) with zero recommendation, ask, or next-step — the closing_ask tag is misleading.
22
closing
Ipsos Issues Index January 2025
“A competent recurring data tracker, but a weak Storymakers exemplar — use it only as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act drain narrative power from solid underlying data.”
↓ No executive summary or headline-finding slide — p.1–p.4 are all framing/cover material, so the reader hits raw issue trends with no thesis to test against.
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
May Macro Brief Consumer spending in flux
“Exemplary title writing wrapped around a pure macro-research dump with no resolution — mine pages 5, 14, 33 and 50 as action-title exemplars, but do NOT use the overall structure as a Storymakers template.”
↓ No resolution act — deck closes with p.61 bond-yields commentary and p.62 team bio, zero recommendations or next steps
22
closing
2023 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, GOVERNANCE REPORT
“A conventional ESG disclosure document organized as a topic encyclopedia with strong evidentiary detail but topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for what action titles and a Resolution act should fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — the reader must read body text to learn what each page concludes
22
closing
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
22
closing
Vaccines & Therapeutics Outlook Part I: Timelines and Success Factors
“A data-rich BCG Perspectives explainer with strong analytical titles but no Resolution act — use p.12–p.17 as a teaching example for declarative action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Two section dividers share an identical title (p.7 and p.20) even though the second section pivots to macro/retail/TSR data — breaks MECE and confuses the reader
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
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
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
ipsos pride report 2025
“Syndicated research report with a strong 5-slide editorial summary bolted onto a 35-slide data appendix; use slides 5-9 as a Storymakers exemplar for translating data into narrative, but the overall structure is a topic dump, not a story.”
↓ Title duplication: 'LGBT Attitudes by Country' appears on at least 5 slides (11, 13, 15, 17, 23) with no insight extracted on the page itself
22
closing
Ipsos Health Service Report 2024 Global Charts
“A market-research findings report dressed as a deck — strong opening stat and clean three-pillar tour, but it uses survey questions as titles, never resolves into a recommendation, and is therefore a Storymakers anti-example for titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Survey questions used as slide titles ~15 times (p.7, 20-28, 30-40, 42-47) — the action title is doing none of the storytelling work, callouts have to carry it
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
Ipsos Populism Survey 2024
“A competent survey-results report with a strong early statistic and a clean composite index, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary tale — topic-taxonomy spine, question-as-title convention, and no resolution act; use the callout discipline and the p22 index construction as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or 'so what' act — the deck ends on p48 spending data, then methodology, then a brand tagline (p52 'BE SURE. ACT SMARTER.')
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
what worries the world december 2024
“A disciplined recurring data tracker with strong callout writing and clean pillar structure, but undermined by topic-label titles and no closing synthesis — use it as an example of how to write quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Title 'Current Economic Situation' appears on 9 consecutive slides (p.35–46) with no country or finding to differentiate them — readers cannot scan the section
22
closing
2023 impact report
“Polished corporate ESG catalog with strong case studies and metrics but no story arc, no action titles, and no close — useful as a reference for pillar structure and evidence density, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA setup anywhere in the opening — pp.1-4 are brand mood, not situation/complication
22
closing
modern retirement monthly report en
“A polished UBS client-education guidebook with strong MECE lifecycle pillars but weak SCQA narrative and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for framework-driven structure, not for Storymakers storytelling.”
↓ No SCQA arc — deck never frames a complication; it jumps from 'why' (p.4) to framework (p.5) to lifecycle education with no tension to resolve
22
closing
article thebeatjun2025
“A strong front-of-book market commentary that leads with the answer and writes real action titles, then degrades into an unstoryfied 30-page data appendix — use slides 1-15 as a teaching example of 'lead with the answer,' not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Pages 20-51 are a reference data dump with topic-label titles and no narrative thread — roughly half the deck does no storytelling work
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
GSBD Investor Presentation Q1 2023 vF
“A standard BDC earnings/reference deck — competent as financial disclosure but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titling and missing narrative acts.”
↓ Zero action titles across 14 slides — every title is a noun label (e.g. 'Quarterly Balance Sheet', 'Debt'), forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
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