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
374 matching · page 10 / 16
58
narrative
Ukraine Refugee Pulse
“A credible, humane survey report with a strong emotional close but weak Storymakers structure - use p.19-21 as a teaching example of empathetic closing, but do not model the title writing or opening on this deck.”
↓ Action titles are topic nouns ('BARRIERS', 'MENTAL HEALTH', 'CONNECTIVITY') - the insight lives in the callouts, not the titles
58
narrative
Global Future of Cyber Survey
“A data-rich survey report with a defensible S->A->R skeleton but weak Storymakers execution — use p.5, p.14, p.26, and the p.31-32 recommendation as examples of declarative action titles, but treat the seven recycled 'KEY FINDINGS' slides and the single divider as a cautionary tale on pillar signposting.”
↓ Seven+ slides titled 'KEY FINDINGS' (p.12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 30) — topic labels that waste the most valuable real estate on the page
58
narrative
original
“A competent investor-relations deck with a stated thesis and solid supporting data, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc — no Complication, no Resolution, and topic-labeled data slides — so use it to teach how quantification should support a thesis, not as a model for narrative structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never articulates what challenge, risk, or decision the audience must resolve; it is a confidence monologue
58
narrative
2024 barclays 17th annual global consumer staples conference
“Serviceable investor-conference deck with a clear dual-executive arc and an explicit close, but the missing Complication, topic-label financial titles, and absent pillar dividers make it a cautionary example of how IR decks default to analytical dumps — use its p.5/p.15 titles as positive micro-examples, not its structure.”
↓ No Complication act — deck moves Market (p.4) → Share gains (p.5) → Recipe (p.8) with no named threat, inflation pressure, or strategic choice to resolve
58
narrative
ALTAGAMMA 2018 WORLDWIDE LUXURY MARKET MONITOR
“A data-rich industry monitor with disciplined numeric action titles and an early-stated thesis, but it buries the 'so what' under an analytical sprawl and fades into a vague purpose exhortation — use pp. 2, 11, 18 and 26 as teaching examples of insight titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Resolution collapses into one vague slide (p. 30 'Be driven by purpose...') with no prioritized moves or owner/timeline — weak 'so what' for a 30-page build-up
58
narrative
COVID-19 BCG Perspectives Publication #5 with a focus on Revamping Organizations for the New Reality
“A hybrid briefing/publication with a strong analytical spine but no resolution act — use the economic-scenarios section (p.28-35) as a teaching example of declarative titling, not the overall structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation slide — deck ends at p.38 and drops straight into appendix (p.39-42), disclaimer (p.44), and contact (p.45)
58
narrative
TODAY'S CONSUMERS REVEAL THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE
“A competent survey-findings deck with decent action titles mid-deck but no Resolution — useful as a teaching example of quantified callouts, not of Storymakers arc structure.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends on slide 13's reframing and a contact page (14), violating the Resolution act entirely
58
narrative
The True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight (7th Edition)
“A competent BCG industry-insights report with strong data-bearing action titles, but narratively it is an analytical dump without an SCQA resolution — use pp.9, 11, 14, 18 as teaching examples for action-title quality, not the overall structure.”
↓ No answer-first slide: thesis only hinted at on p.6 after 5 front-matter/context pages
58
narrative
The Evolving State of Digital Transformation
“A well-crafted survey-findings brief with exemplary stat-led action titles, but structurally an analytical walk with no complication and no recommendation — use individual slides as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a narrative model.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution slide — deck ends on p.16 describing COVID priorities, then a disclaimer, leaving the reader without a "now what"
58
narrative
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A credible analytical findings deck with strong diagnostic action titles but essentially no Resolution act -- use p.3, p.11, and p.14 as teaching examples of action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendation is one slide (p.15) with a question-as-title -- the entire Resolution act is missing
58
narrative
BCG Investor Perspectives Series Q4 2023
“A strong-opening BCG pulse report with declarative action titles worth teaching from, but it has no closing act and buries itself in a 7-slide table appendix — use slides 3-5 and 10-17 as exemplars for 'answer-first' titling, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends at p18 and then devolves into a 7-slide appendix of comparison tables (p19-25) with no recommendation or call-to-action.
58
narrative
Investor Analyst Conference
“A competent investor-conference results parade with genuinely strong declarative titles in the analytical middle, but it lacks narrative tension, MECE pillar scaffolding, and a real close -- use p.6/p.11/p.13 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (p.14-16) share the exact same title 'Highlights of our 360 value for all our stakeholders' -- signals a topic dump where pillar discipline should live
55
narrative
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
55
narrative
Nielsen Fan Insights
“A competent data-reporting deck with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, but not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.17 'Thank you!' with zero call to action
55
narrative
Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Spring 2019
“A solid analytical market-update deck with above-average action titles and a real attempt at tension on p.9-10, but it has no recommendation act and ends in administrative pages — useful as an example of strong title craft, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends with team bios, contacts, methodology and a logo (p.11-15)
55
narrative
IPSOS LOVE LIFE SATISFACTION 2025
“A competent research-findings deck with several strong action titles in the back half, but it is structured as a data tour rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as an example of good callouts, not of arc construction.”
↓ Slides 4-6 reuse the verbatim survey-question wording as titles, abdicating the action-title responsibility
55
narrative
Audio today 2022 How America listens
“A thesis-driven Nielsen marketing deck with strong action titles and a memorable opening hook, but it collapses into a data dump with no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for full Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call-to-action — deck dies in data tables (p.14-15) and a boilerplate corporate slide (p.16)
55
narrative
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4 2022
“A competent quarterly market bulletin with a strong opening and quotable callouts, but it stops at analysis and never delivers a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-title openings and TCO framing, not as a Storymakers exemplar of a full S→C→A→R arc.”
↓ No resolution act: deck ends p.21–23 with three identical 'Electric vehicle sales data' tables, then contacts, then 'Thank you' — zero recommendations or implications for OEMs/policymakers.
55
narrative
Trend Compendium 2050 Full Version
“A high-quality thought-leadership compendium with strong quantified titles but no SCQA spine — useful as an exemplar of action-title craft, not of executive narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1-5 establish topic and scope but never state a thesis or stakes the executive must care about
55
narrative
Romanian E Mobility Index REI 4 (Fourth Edition)
“A competent index-update deck with strong action titles and answer-first opening, but it stops at analysis and never lands a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends on a methodology explainer (p.15) and authors (p.16)
55
narrative
Growth remains strong for market expansion services in Asia
“A competent parallel-pillar market-sizing brief with strong action titles but no SCQA arc and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling and MECE industry structure, not for narrative storytelling.”
↓ No 'so what' / recommendation slide — the deck stops at p.11 and dumps into Methodology/Disclaimer with zero synthesis
55
narrative
Sustainability Report 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023
“A competent annual sustainability report with credible KPIs but topic-label titles and no SCQA spine — useful as a 'how to surface impact numbers' example, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Duplicate titles on pp.6–7 ('Key programmes helping us deliver on our corporate sustainability goals:') reveal the lack of distinct, MECE narrative pillars
55
narrative
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
55
narrative
Copernicus Market report
“A meticulously quantified, MECE-by-sector EU market study with strong evidence but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of consistent sectoral templates and metric discipline, not of Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation, synthesis, or call-to-action - the deck stops at Security case studies and slides into appendix (pp. 156-164).