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
130 matching · page 6 / 6
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
Global IPO Watch 2021 A PwC Global IPO Centre publication
“A well-structured market-data report with MECE geographic coverage, but as a Storymakers exemplar it shows what NOT to do — topic-label titles, no Complication/Resolution arc, and a deck that ends in tables; use only the callout sentences as a teaching example of insight-bearing language.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 'Overview of IPO and FO activity in the Americas' (p.12-13) is repeated verbatim with no differentiation
20
closing
what worries the world november 2024 ipsos
“A competent recurring data tracker with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how callouts should be promoted to action titles, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights: 'Current Economic Situation' is reused on 12 consecutive slides (p.35-46) with no differentiation
20
closing
1681885970281
“A competent sell-side thematic outlook with strong callout writing but no story arc or recommendation — useful as an example of how callouts should sound, not of how a Storymakers deck should be structured.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck terminates on Theme 10 (p.10) and immediately enters 8 pages of disclosures with zero synthesis, recommendation, or 'how to position' slide.
18
closing
femke de keulenaer
“A competent secondary-research evidence pack with strong stat callouts but no narrative arc or recommendation - useful as a teaching example of how good data dies inside topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act - the deck terminates at p.17 data and jumps straight to 'THANK YOU!' on p.18
15
closing
SAP Innovation Awards 2022 Entry Pitch Deck
“A template-driven awards submission with strong KPI evidence but no narrative spine — useful as a cautionary example of how rigid submission templates kill action titles and destroy the closing act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Fourteen consecutive slides titled 'Additional Information' (p.15–p.30) — the deck abandons titling discipline entirely in its second half
15
closing
MARKET DATA FROM SECONDARY SOURCES
“A secondary-research data tour disguised as a deck — useful as a counter-example of methodology-first structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation anywhere — the deck is a methodology demonstration ('here is how we pull secondary data'), not an argument
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
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
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?'