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
635 matching · page 18 / 27
55
narrative
IPSOS POPULISM SURVEY
“A competent research-data report with a strong opening hook but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and section structure, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questionnaire text and the deck ends in branding rather than a 'so what'.”
↓ Titles are survey-question text, not action titles — slides 24-31 read like a questionnaire transcript, not an argument
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
CCPC INVESTMENTS RESEARCH
“A competent survey-readout deck with strong declarative chart titles but no narrative spine — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ p.2 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' is sparse with no synthesized thesis — wastes the highest-attention slot in the deck
55
narrative
original
“A competent quarterly-earnings template that opens BLUF but ends in a tautology and an oversized appendix — useful as an example of disciplined callout writing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Closing slide 19 is a copy-paste of the opening slide 4 — no synthesis, no ask, no forward look
55
narrative
eReadiness 2023 Survey
“A well-titled, well-segmented research dump from Strategy& that demonstrates excellent action-title craft in the analytical body but buries its recommendation under 76 pages of evidence - use the consumer chapters as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles, not the deck as a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Answer is buried: 5 recommendations land on p.79-80 after 76 pages of analysis, and both slides share the identical action title - the 'so what' gets ~2.5% of the page budget
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
Sportech 2021 Paris, February 2022
“A competent analytical scan of French sportech with strong metric-laden titles and good callouts, but no thesis, no resolution, and overlapping pillars — useful as a teaching example for action-titled data slides, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening: pages 1-4 are cover/agenda/divider/context — the deck never states what question it answers or why the reader should care
55
narrative
Lazard LCOE+
“A polished annual reference report with strong MECE pillar structure but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for parallel-section design and sensitivity tables, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Opens cold: cover → TOC → divider → three 'Executive Summary—...' topic-label slides (pp.1-6) before any insight surfaces
55
narrative
Bike Sharing 5.0
“Solid analytical industry study with metric-rich declarative titles, but it is a Roland Berger 'overview' rather than a Storymakers argument - useful as an example of clean data titling, not as a model for opening hooks, MECE pillars, or recommendation closes.”
↓ p.2 'executive summary' restates the deck's purpose ('this study provides a comprehensive overview') instead of leading with the answer - a Storymakers cardinal sin
55
narrative
Vitamins & Dietary Supplements Market trends – Overview
“A competent PwC market-overview deck with strong declarative titles on data slides, but it is a report not a story — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, 'so what,' or call-to-action slide — the deck stops at the last regional forecast (p.22) and jumps straight to Contacts (p.23)
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
Internet Advertising Revenue Report
“A competently-titled industry data report whose individual slide titles are above-average Storymakers craft, but the deck as a whole is a category-by-category data tour with no SCQA arc and no recommendation -- use slides 5-11 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: there is a Situation (growth) and Complication (COVID) but no Question or Resolution -- the deck never tells the audience what to do with the findings
55
narrative
4th edition eReadiness 2023
“A strong research-report exemplar with disciplined action titles and clean MECE segmentation, but a weak Storymakers arc — buries a 2-slide recommendation at the end of 70 pages of analysis; use the analytical title-writing as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Recommendations compressed to just 2 of 83 slides (pp.79-80) and both carry the identical generic title — the 'so what' is essentially unwritten
55
narrative
ovid-19 Special Primer (2020)
“A well-evidenced topical primer with strong declarative titles but no Storymakers narrative arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and chart-level rigor, not for deck-level story design.”
↓ No thesis slide and no synthesis slide — p.2 openly frames this as a 'round-up,' so 7 sections sit side-by-side with no unifying argument
55
narrative
Responding to Covid-19 (2021)
“A competent COVID-19 reference almanac with strong action titles and clear callouts, but it lacks an SCQA frame and ends in a marketing CTA — useful as a teaching example for action-title and callout craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA setup in the opening: p.1-3 are cover/intro/TOC and p.6 is a generic 'summary facts' page rather than a thesis
55
narrative
Nielsen 2022 Audio Today How America Listens Jun22 FINAL
“A data-driven advocacy deck for radio that opens with a strong hook and insight-bearing titles but has no complication, no recommendation, and ends in an appendix — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never poses a tension for advertisers nor recommends an action
55
narrative
morgan stanley virtual hk summit march 2022
“A standard Macquarie investor-relations template with a clean section spine and a handful of strong declarative titles, but no SCQA arc, a buried thesis, and a 26-slide appendix tail — useful as a teaching example of IR structure and of how 'topic labels vs. action titles' diverges, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — opens cover→disclaimer→agenda→divider→'at a glance', burying the 'why own us' answer
55
narrative
morgan stanley conference slides
“Investor-conference status briefing with topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for action-title coaching, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide: a reader of the action titles alone cannot answer 'what is Northern Trust IT's argument?'
55
narrative
ey uli fow global survey 2020 report
“A well-titled survey-findings deck with strong headline discipline but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide; deck dissolves into 'About ULI / About EY' on p.24-25 instead of resolving the argument
55
narrative
ey norwegian crypto adoption survey v2
“A competent survey-findings readout with strong action titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative slide titles, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.13 then dumps into appendix/disclaimer (pp.14–16)
55
narrative
ey mobility consumer index 2023
“A well-structured analytical research report with strong action titles and creative pillar labels, but no thesis at the front and no recommendation at the back — useful as a teaching example for title craft and section-divider voice, not for SCQA narrative arc.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–3 establish the study but never pose a question or stake; reader doesn't know what they're being argued toward
55
narrative
ey iif bank risk management survey
“A well-structured survey reference report with strong callouts but weak Storymakers discipline — use its front-loaded exec summary as a teaching example, but its raw 'Figure N: <question>' titles and absent recommendation are exactly what the methodology argues against.”
↓ Body-slide titles are mostly raw survey questions prefixed 'Figure N:' (pp.8,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,26,27,29,32,33) — the single biggest Storymakers failure in the deck
55
narrative
ey global consumer health survey 23 global findings and highlights v2
“A research-report-as-deck: solid quote-titled findings and a usable 2x2, but structured as a six-country data catalog with no closing recommendation — use the country-slide titling style as a teaching example, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ 14 slides titled 'Summary, continued' (pp.6-11, 13-15, 17-19) — a navigational failure that destroys reader orientation and signals the deck wasn't given proper action titles
55
narrative
ey connecting the dots m a deals in technology services in 2024
“A competent banker landscape report with strong action titles and tight analytical density, but it is a data brief — not a Storymakers exemplar — because it lacks a stakes-setting opening, MECE pillars and any closing recommendation.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' — deck ends on team_bio (p.9) and methodology/disclaimer, leaving the reader with data but no action