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 29 / 31
22
closing
MorganStanley
“A fund-product pitchbook with a respectable macro storytelling opener but no resolution — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft in the macro section (pp.5-16), not as a structural Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ First 5 slides bury the lede behind cover + two disclaimers + a question title (p.4); no executive summary or thesis statement
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
Newmark May 2023 FI Conference Presentation Vf Final
“A competent fixed-income IR deck with several exemplary action titles in its middle third, but structurally it is a data walk rather than a Storymakers story — use slides 11, 14, 16, and 19 as teaching examples for declarative titles, not the deck's overall arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are pure front matter; the investable thesis ('when markets normalize we exceed peak revenues') is hidden on p.13 rather than stated on p.3 or p.4
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
20
closing
European Distressed Credit Watch List
“A competently produced reference catalogue of distressed European credits with strong market-context data on the front end, but it abandons narrative craft at the case-study section and has no close — useful as a teaching example of what 'analytical dump with no resolution' looks like, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends mid-catalogue at p.39 (Winoa) then jumps to contacts
20
closing
Capgemini Engineering Overview 2021
“A credentials brochure masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-title catalog structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative, pillars, or action titles.”
↓ Two consecutive slides (p.10 and p.11) share the identical title 'SELECTED SUCCESS STORIES' with no differentiating action title
20
closing
Everest Group Retail Services
“A reprinted analyst-badge marketing asset, not a Storymakers deck — useful only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and appendix-as-closer; do not use as an exemplar.”
↓ Pages 5-11 are labelled only «Cognizant profile (page X of 7)» — seven consecutive topic-label titles with no insight, the single worst Storymakers violation in the deck.
20
closing
2023 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey
“A credible data-rich survey report with strong callouts and metrics, but structurally a topic-tour with question-form titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how to put insights in the title bar, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are almost uniformly questions rather than answers (p.8, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.21, p.23, p.25, p.26) — the reader has to mine callouts to extract the so-what
20
closing
Deloitte Global 2024 Gen Z and Millennial Survey Country profile: Netherlands
“A competent survey-data country report organised as a topic dump with noun-label titles and no arc or close — use it as a counter-example of what happens when action titles and resolution are missing, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Situation→Complication→Answer→Resolution arc: p.2 jumps straight from methodology into a topic parade with no central tension or thesis
20
closing
Global Economics Intelligence (August 2023)
“A competent recurring economics briefing with strong action-titled analytical slides but no narrative arc and no recommendation - useful as a teaching example for dense data-slide titling, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation, synthesis, or 'so what' - deck ends on a Brazil PMI chart (p.28) then a logo (p.29)
20
closing
Global Top 100 companies 2023
“A competent annual benchmarking publication with strong analytical action titles in the middle, but it is a data report — not a Storymakers narrative — because it has no complication, no recommendation, and dissolves into ranking tables; use slides 5-8 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never asks 'so what should leaders do?' and ends in ranking tables (p.17-21)
20
closing
Lazards Lcoeplus
“A best-in-class industry reference report with strong MECE bones and several insight-bearing titles, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the answer-first test and dies in an appendix — use individual slides (p.5, p.32, p.39) as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a structural model.”
↓ No answer-first opening — 4 slides of front matter before any claim, and no executive summary up front
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
Attitudes towards a global plastic pollution treaty
“A clean, disciplined survey-data report that functions as a reference table — not a Storymakers exemplar; use it to teach what consistent callout discipline looks like, but flag it as the canonical example of question-titled, recommendation-less data dumping.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — the reader has to read the chart to learn the answer (e.g. p.20 'Ban chemicals used in plastic that are hazardous…?')
20
closing
Understanding public attitudes to early childhood
“A competent research-findings deck with exemplary stat-led action titles but no Recommendation act — use slides 4, 6, 7, 13 as teaching examples for title craft, not the deck as a whole for narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'next steps' slide — closes on p.17 'Contact', so the analysis dies on the table
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
Consumers at 250
“A competently titled survey-findings report with a strong 'X vs. Y' pillar device, but it stops at analysis and never resolves into a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension framing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendations or 'so what' slide — deck dies on an industry data table (p.30)
20
closing
Deloitte SEA CFO Forum Southeast Asia Business Outlook
“A services brochure dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example of how a parallel-pillar capabilities dump fails the Storymakers tests (no SCQA, topic-label titles, firm-first opening, contacts-page ending), not as an exemplar to emulate.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis: the deck never names a Complication the CFO should care about, so every services block arrives unmotivated
20
closing
Ipsos Equalities Index 2023 Full report
“A well-instrumented opinion-research data book with a strong 20-page narrative front and a 50-page reference back, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.1–20 to teach answer-first openings and quotable callouts, and use the appendix as a cautionary example of topic-label titling.”
↓ Action titles are survey-question labels, not insights — the same question text is reused on 20+ appendix slides (pp.30–51)
20
closing
ipsos global perceptions of healthcare 2023
“A clean survey data-dump with strong callouts but no narrative, no insight titles, and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how to turn poll results into a Storymakers story, not as an exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.6-p.12 literally start with «To what extent do you agree or disagree…»
20
closing
Ipsos Global Health Service Monitor 2023 WEB
“A well-organized survey data report, not a Storymakers deck — use the section scaffolding and THE HEADLINES pattern as a navigational example, but it is an anti-example of action titling and has no closing argument.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' act: the deck ends in appendix + methodology + corporate slide (p.30–p.45) with zero synthesis
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)