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 59.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
737 matching · page 10 / 31
62
narrative
What if all vehicles were electric?
“Solid analytical point-of-view with quantified titles but a missing resolution act — useful as a teaching example for declarative-title craft, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on rate-limiters (p.9) with no recommendation, implication, or answer to the cover question
62
narrative
The Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brands Index
“A competently structured research-findings deck with two pockets of strong action-title craft (pp.21–24) but no SCQA arc, no answer-first opening, and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean chaptering and isolated action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No answer-first opening — five slides of cover/TOC/methodology before any finding (p.9 is the first insight)
62
narrative
Project Spiritus Final report Market Study
“Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — closing growth-opportunities slide (p.92) is descriptive, not prescriptive; deck never tells the reader what to do
62
narrative
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with a strong hook and insight-bearing key-message slides, but it stops at analysis and never answers the 'so what' — useful as a teaching example for action titles and rhetorical setup, not for closing a story.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends p.27-30 in methodology, sources, and an About Ipsos boilerplate
62
narrative
Our life with AI: The reality of today and the promise of tomorrow
“A well-evidenced public-opinion research report with elegant chapter framing but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence/callout pairing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are poetic topic labels not insights — 'The promise of tomorrow.', 'Around the corner.', 'A generation away.' force the reader to decode each chart
62
narrative
Lloyd’s and Bermuda
“A competent analytical talk-deck with a strong middle (quantified action titles, well-built reserving and rate-hardening story) but a definitional opening and a hand-wave ending — useful as a teaching example for action-titled analysis slides, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no thesis or stakes — reader doesn't know the question being answered until ~p.11
62
narrative
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
62
narrative
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS MONITOR
“A thought-leadership research report with a strong counter-intuitive opening that gradually devolves into a topic-by-topic analytical dump with no closing recommendation — useful as a teaching example for hooks and section dividers, not for a complete S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ Six slides titled 'Concluding thoughts' (p.19, 28, 36, 44, 52, 62) — repetitive, generic, and forfeit the chance to land the per-section punchline in the title
62
narrative
2023 EU Wide EBA Stress Test Our First Glance at Results
“A competent analyst briefing with a strong BLUF opening and one memorable thesis ('P2G drives winners and losers'), but it buries action titles in callouts and ends in an appendix dump — useful as a teaching example for opening slides and benchmarking, not for narrative closure.”
↓ Eight consecutive slides (p.6–12) reuse '1. EBA Stress Test Impacts' as the on-slide title — the action-title work has been pushed into the callout layer, defeating skim-readability
62
narrative
Private Markets Asset Allocation Guide May 2023 002
“A well-pillared educational guide with strong analytical chops but no resolution — use Sections 1-3 as a teaching example of MECE structure and selective action titles, but pair it with a counter-example for how to open with a thesis and close with a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation/CTA slide — the deck ends mid-analysis at p.35 and dumps into appendix, violating Storymakers' resolution requirement
62
narrative
South Africa Economic Outlook Productivity Potential Index (PPI): A new way of measuring countries’ productive competiti
“A tight diagnostic note with strong action titles and an implicit MECE pillar structure, but it stops at diagnosis — useful as an example of pillar-based analysis, not as a full S→C→A→R Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.9 diagnosis then jumps to p.10 contacts, with no recommendation or next-steps slide
62
narrative
Nigeria Economic Outlook
“A solid analytical macroeconomic outlook with strong action titles in the diagnosis section, but it reads as a research briefing rather than a Storymakers narrative - useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for arc design or closing.”
↓ No BLUF or thesis slide in the opening - reader must infer the deck's question from the dashboard on p.3
62
narrative
Global Sustainability Study 2021
“A credible research-study deck with a strong thesis-led opening but an analytical middle of topic-label charts and a closing that pivots to a firm sales pitch — useful as an exemplar of front-loaded SCQA and quantified callouts, not of full-arc Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation: the deck ends with a firm-promo pitch (p.28-29) and thank-you slides (p.30-31) instead of returning to 'so what should companies do Monday morning?'
62
narrative
Global Pricing Study 2011
“A short research-summary teaser with strong headline-title discipline on its analytical slides but no recommendation and a self-promotional close — useful as an exemplar of insight titles, not of full SCQA arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on p.9 with a firm-credentials slide ('No. 1 in marketing and sales in Germany')
62
narrative
Global Automotive Study 2023
“A well-titled, evidence-rich research-report deck whose per-slide craft is exemplary but whose overall arc is a parallel-themed survey rather than a Storymakers SCQA build — use the action titles and per-section 'How to act?' pattern as teaching examples, not the opening or closing.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — pages 1-5 are admin/methodology before the first insight on p.6
62
narrative
When will the knot finally unravel?
“A competent short market-update deck with disciplined quantified titles and a consistent thesis line, but it stops at outlook and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for full S-C-Q-A arc.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — p.7's outlook is the de facto close, followed by filler (p.8) and front-matter (p.9)
62
narrative
Truck and trailer components – Success factors for suppliers in specialized markets
“A competent Roland Berger market-study deck with strong declarative titling and clean MECE sections, but it buries the recommendation and lacks an SCQA opener — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for action-title craft, not for narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opener — the management summary (p.2-3) is a dense recap, not a thesis; the reader must reach p.44 to find the 'so what'
62
narrative
Trends in the truck & trailer market
“A well-structured analytical market study with strong quantified titles and a clear MECE framework, but it stops at 'here is what we found' rather than 'here is what to do' - useful as a research-deck exemplar, weaker as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No genuine recommendation or 'so what' act - p.49 is the only slide tagged 'recommend' and it offers a generic capability statement rather than client actions
62
narrative
Trend 2030 Dynamic Technology Innovation
“A solid pillared research compendium with disciplined action titles and a real recommendation act, but with a weak opening and a closing that decays into appendix — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and MECE pillaring, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Opening 4 slides are 'about this document' meta-context (pp.1–4) rather than a thesis or stakes hook
62
narrative
The Lithium-Ion (EV) battery market and supply chain
“Strong analytical mid-section with quantified, declarative titles, but bookended by a thesis-less opening and a triple-takeaway close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide — first 5 pages establish context but never preview the answer or stakes
62
narrative
Roland Berger views on H2 market development
“A competent Roland Berger market-sizing study with strong action titles and clean MECE structure, but it is a reference document not a Storymakers exemplar — use the title-writing on p.11–18 as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No executive summary or BLUF — the EUR 10bn headline is buried on p.7 and never restated as a thesis
62
narrative
Private financing of rolling stock
“A well-structured analytical study with strong MECE pillars and metric-rich titles, but it reads as a research report rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No executive summary or thesis slide in the opening — the answer is delayed until p.8
62
narrative
Innovation in logistics: advanced pooling and robotization
“An analytically credible but structurally loose point-of-view deck — use its quantified action titles (p.12, p.16, p.19) as a teaching example, but not its overall arc, which promises a 3-pillar framework and delivers a single-pillar essay.”
↓ Middle act drift — pp.7-11 jump from Russia (p.7) to platform success factors (p.8) to a 5-cluster business-model framework (p.9) to a repeat of the '3 areas' slide (p.10) to 'Big 3 facts' (p.11), with no MECE thread
62
narrative
The global consumer: Changed for good Consumer trends accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are sticking
“A well-organised PwC research publication with clean MECE pillars and mostly declarative titles, but it is a survey readout — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it has no Complication and no recommendation; use the pillar architecture and action titles as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No recommendation, action plan, or 'so what for the business' slide — closes with a poetic 'Light at the end of the tunnel' (p.22)