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.

Narrative Opening Closing Title quality
0 1 15 31 112 362 358 204 3 0
1086 reviewed decks · mean 59.8 · click a bar to filter
suggests: lead ✕ clear all

Search by prescribed fix

most common opening verb across 3405 suggestions
add 765 rewrite 729 replace 647 insert 374 move 146 collapse 137 promote 130 convert 89 expand 44 tighten 35 rename 35 compress 30 reframe 30 lead 28 either 24 cut 22 consolidate 22 restructure 20 de-duplicate 19 group 19 fix 16 sharpen 15 introduce 15 upgrade 14

Filtered reviewed decks

28 matching · page 2 / 2
52 narrative
OliverWyman · 2023 · 46p
GPT-3 and the actuarial landscape
“A competent educational tutorial on GPT-3 with a strong but late-arriving actuarial thesis — useful as a teaching artifact, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because the recommendation is buried at p.40 of 46 and nine consecutive slides share one topic title.”
↓ Same title 'MACHINE LEARNING 101: GRADIENT DESCENT' repeated across nine consecutive slides (p.9-17) — zero progressive disclosure of insight in the titles
48 narrative
Capgemini · 2025 · 73p
Capgemini Group Presentation 2025
“Corporate introduction brochure with a decent three-pillar spine but no SCQA arc and a bloated appendix — useful as a teaching case of how MECE pillars can coexist with weak action-titling, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA or problem framing anywhere in the first 10 pages — the deck asserts identity rather than arguing a point
45 narrative
misc · 2023 · 45p
IPSOS GLOBAL HEALTH SERVICE MONITOR 2023
“A competently structured survey-monitor report — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it labels topics instead of arguing a thesis and ends in an appendix rather than a recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — deck ends on a methodology page (p.44) and a brand slide (p.45)
42 narrative
misc · 2024 · 39p
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide