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 31 / 31
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 global trustworthiness monitor 2022 charts
“A meticulously consistent research tabulation, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of how survey-question titles and an analysis-only arc bury a strong opening insight under 170 pages of undifferentiated charts.”
↓ ~180 of 186 titles are topic labels (e.g. p.45 'Financial services - It is good at what it does'), not declarative findings
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
ey praesentation startup barometer 2025 englisch
“A disciplined EY research barometer with strong action-title hygiene but no narrative arc and no resolution — use slides 4, 8, and 11 as exemplars of headline-number titles, but not the deck structure as a Storymakers model.”
↓ No SCQA setup: the deck never frames why 2024 matters, what changed for German startups, or what question the data is answering
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
350e000c acff 48f1 ab1e fc2abe7a5f3c
“A Goldman weekly strategy note with a strong thesis opening and a reference-book middle — useful as a teaching example for lead-with-the-answer openings, but not as a story arc.”
↓ 27 consecutive analyze_data slides (p.6–32) with no narrative thread back to the Mag-7 question
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
ipsos hisf world affairs report 2023 final
“A topic-indexed survey data dump with strong parallel structure but no thesis, no recommendation, and titles that are mostly category labels — use it as a counter-example of how to publish findings without a story, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary, key-findings page, or recommendation anywhere in 92 pages — the insight-per-slide ratio is close to zero for a reader skimming titles
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?'
12
closing
Review of efficiency of the operation of the federal courts
“This is an educational primer on how the U.S. federal courts work — not a consulting argument — and serves as a counter-example for Storymakers, useful only to illustrate what happens when a deck has topic labels but no thesis, analysis, or recommendation.”
↓ Action titles carry zero insight — every slide title is a noun phrase (e.g. p.10 'THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS', p.23 'The Appeals Process'); a reader skimming titles learns nothing.
10
closing
Second Quarter 2023 Results
“This is an earnings-disclosure deck, not a consulting argument — topic-label titles, no SCQA arc, and a closing half built entirely of reconciliation tables; useful as a counter-example of what Storymakers principles are designed to replace, not as an exemplar.”
↓ Zero action titles across 25 pages — 'Non-GAAP P&L', 'Research Metrics', 'Capital Structure and Allocation' are all category labels that force the reader to mine the chart for the point
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