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
726 matching · page 28 / 31
22
closing
Monitor Deloitte’s 2022 Chief Transformation Officer Study — Designing Successful Transformations
“A competent industry research report with a logical value-chain spine and pockets of real insight titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close, and too many topic-label titles — useful as a case study in how to rewrite breadcrumb titles into action titles, not as a model of narrative structure.”
↓ No executive summary or answer-first slide — the reader must read 16+ pages before any synthesis, and none ever arrives
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
Asia-Pacific 2022 Hospital Priorities Survey: Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers
“A competent analytical survey readout with disciplined numeric action titles and a strong mid-deck pivot, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'Strategic Implications for Healthcare Providers' its title promises — use pp.3-10 as a teaching example of front-loaded findings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'implications for providers' slide despite the subtitle — deck ends on p.21 data then contact/disclaimer
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
Global Economics Intelligence June 2023
“A disciplined regional macro digest with strong MECE pillars and number-bearing titles, but it is a descriptive intelligence product rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and pillar structure, not for story arc or close.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck terminates on Brazil data (p27) and logo (p28), with zero call to action or implications
22
closing
IAB Podcast Ad Revenue
“A credible industry data study with a strong SCQA opening and two exemplary action titles, but it degrades into topic-labeled data tables and ends in administrative back matter - useful as a teaching example for the p.4-7 setup, not as a full Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No synthesis or implications slide between p.10 (last data) and p.11 (Contacts) - the 'so what' for advertisers, publishers, or platforms is never stated
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
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
2022 Environmental, Social, Governance Report
“A disciplined but title-flat ESG compliance report with clean pillar architecture and real metrics buried in callouts; useful as a teaching example of MECE section dividers, but a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, and closing call-to-action.”
↓ Zero action titles in 48 narrative pages — every headline is a noun phrase ('TALENT DEVELOPMENT', 'PAY PRACTICES & PAY EQUITY', 'HUMAN RIGHTS') so a reader skimming titles learns the agenda but no insights
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
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