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 24 / 31
52
narrative
Re-Imagine the Possible 2018/2019
“A topic-organized budget walkthrough with strong numerical content but weak narrative scaffolding — useful as a teaching example of how MECE pillars and quantitative anchors are necessary but not sufficient without action titles and an explicit thesis.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is cover/agenda/divider/divider/framework with no stated point of view
52
narrative
PwC’s 2019 actuarial robotic process automation (RPA) survey report
“A competent survey-results report with strong quantified callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how good data can be undermined by a missing close and absent action titles.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.7-10) share the title 'Use of RPA within different functions in the insurer (continued)' — a textbook topic-dump anti-pattern with zero MECE signaling
52
narrative
Merging with SPAC
“A competent client-education primer on SPAC mechanics with a strong opening market block but no thesis and no close — use slides 4-10 and 34 as teaching examples of action titles, and use the rest as a cautionary case in how topic-dump structure and '(cont'd)' titles erode a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Eleven slides reuse '(cont'd)' as their title (p.17-19, 21, 25, 27-29, 41, 47, 49, 51-53) — built for the speaker, not the reader, a Storymakers cardinal sin
52
narrative
Global Workforce Hopes Fears 2022
“A well-titled survey report dressed as a deck — use slides 4, 6, and 10-12 as examples of insight-bearing action titles, but do not hold the overall structure up as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — p.20 to appendix is an abrupt drop-off with zero implications for employers
52
narrative
GEM Outlook 2023-2027 Hong Kong
“A competent PwC outlook report with above-average action-title craft in the segment sections, but it reads as an analytical inventory rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides 9, 13, 17, 20 as teaching examples of declarative titles, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 02 → 04 (no section 03), signalling either lost content or a sloppy bolt-on of the GenAI module
52
narrative
Five global shifts megatrends
“A well-organized PwC point-of-view survey with disciplined parallel pillars but a buried thesis, recycled titles, and no call to action — useful as a teaching example for MECE pillar structure, not for Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ Five identical 'Possible implications…' titles (p.6/10/14/18/22) — pure topic labels that waste the most-read line on every other slide
52
narrative
Consumers’ sustainability sentiment and behavior before, during and after the COVID-19 crisis
“A solid analytical survey readout with disciplined number-led titles, but it's a findings catalogue rather than a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.5-8 as a teaching example for action titles, not the deck's overall structure, which lacks both Complication and Resolution.”
↓ No Resolution act — the deck terminates on p.26 with a demographic finding instead of a recommendation or 'implications for FMCG' slide
52
narrative
Challenges in Mining Scarcity Opportunity
“A solid analytical pack with McKinsey-grade quantified action titles, but it is two decks stapled together with a buried recommendation - use the middle analysis slides as a teaching example for action titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ Deck appears to be two packs glued together: a productivity/automation story (p.1-11) and a rare-earth market story (p.31-41), with a 'BACKUP' divider (p.12) and a misplaced 'Executive summary' (p.13) sitting between them
52
narrative
A changing Fitness consumer
“A high-quality McKinsey research-insights deck with exemplary action-title craft, but it is an analytical catalog rather than an SCQA story — useful as a teaching example for title writing and evidence density, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on p.44 (in-person fitness conversion) and p.45 (disclaimer) with no implications, recommendations, or prioritization across the 7 growth pockets introduced on p.34
52
narrative
Consumers at 250
“A competently titled survey-findings report with a strong 'X vs. Y' pillar device, but it stops at analysis and never resolves into a recommendation — useful as a teaching example for action titles and tension framing, not for full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No closing recommendations or 'so what' slide — deck dies on an industry data table (p.30)
52
narrative
Pulse of Fintech H1 2021
“A well-organized analytical reference report with strong stat-led titles in its core, but it is a market-data digest rather than a Storymakers deck — use its action titles and stat-led section dividers as a teaching example, not its overall structure or its non-existent close.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on p.66 data table then About/Contacts; zero 'so what should investors/operators do' slide
52
narrative
Our Impact Plan 2023
“A well-structured ESG/impact report with exemplary MECE pillar architecture but weak action titles and no call to action — use the section-divider structure as a teaching example, not the title craft or the closing.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (p.13 'Purposeful business', p.25 'Human rights', p.51 'Decarbonization', p.59 'Climate risk') — the action-title discipline is largely absent
52
narrative
Our Impact Plan 2022
“A competent ESG/CSR reporting document with parallel pillar architecture and strong quantified callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a cautionary case — topic-label titles, no SCQA tension, and a closing that trails off into governance and contacts; teach the pillar structure and KPI openers, not the narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps synthesis — the deck ends on p.51 'Governance' (an establish_context slide) and p.52 'Contacts', wasting the last impression
52
narrative
Big shifts small steps Sustainability 2022
“Strong action-title hygiene in the analytical body but built as a research benchmark report, not a story — useful as a teaching example for action titles and pillar structure, weak as an end-to-end Storymakers exemplar because the close is a service plug and the recommendation is buried on p.7.”
↓ Closing collapses into a KPMG sales plug (p.76 'How we can help') and 'Read more' (p.77) with no synthesized recommendation tied to the five trends
52
narrative
what worries the world december 2024
“A disciplined recurring data tracker with strong callout writing and clean pillar structure, but undermined by topic-label titles and no closing synthesis — use it as an example of how to write quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Title 'Current Economic Situation' appears on 9 consecutive slides (p.35–46) with no country or finding to differentiate them — readers cannot scan the section
52
narrative
Ipsos World Refugee Day 2024 Global Report PUBLIC 0
“A competent global survey report with strong synthesis sentences but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for why action titles matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — p.11, p.12, p.17, p.18, p.30–34 all use 'Q. ...' verbatim where an action title belongs
52
narrative
Ipsos Populism Final February 2024
“A competent global survey readout with a strong paradox hook on p.3 that the rest of the deck fails to honor — usable as a teaching example of how survey-question titles and a missing recommendation act flatten an otherwise promising argument, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ p.35 title contains an unresolved template placeholder '[NOUN FOR PEOPLE FROM COUNTRY, PLURAL]' — a proofreading failure that undermines credibility
52
narrative
Ipsos AI Monitor 2024 final APAC
“A well-organized syndicated research monitor with one strong thesis hook (slide 2) and clean MECE pillars, but body titles are raw survey questions and the deck ends in methodology with no recommendation — use it as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 30 of ~36 content slides use raw survey-question text as titles instead of declarative insights (e.g., p.20, p.23, p.28, p.34)
52
narrative
CCPC Investments Research Sept. 2021
“A competent market-research findings deck with strong per-slide action titles but no story arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative data-slide headlines, not for Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' close: the deck ends on p.13 with another finding and then 'CONTACTS' (p.14), so the reader leaves without a call to action.
52
narrative
goldman sachs may 2021
“A competent IR/earnings presentation with above-average action titles, but structurally a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for narrative design.”
↓ No Situation→Complication setup: jumps from sustainability theme (p.3-10) straight into Q1 results (p.11) with no bridging tension
52
narrative
Tenth Annual Leveraged Finance and Credit Conference
“A competent investor-relations deck with a workable resilience narrative but a buried answer, a broken appendix boundary, and a logo-only close — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence chaining (p.7-9) but weak as a Storymakers exemplar of arc, dividers, and closing.”
↓ Closing slide (p.26) is just the company logo — no CTA, no summary, no ask
52
narrative
gpc genai ocsummaryv2 content
“A credible Gartner survey digest with a strong sample-size hook and decent per-function action titles, but structurally it is an analytical dump — no SCQA arc, blank section dividers, and a marketing CTA where the recommendation should be; use the per-function slides (p.26–36) as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Repeated identical titles on consecutive slides (p.4–6 'Barriers…', p.7–9 'Identifying… Benefits', p.10–12 'Pinpointing Use Cases') signal a topic dump rather than a build
52
narrative
apr12jlovelock 840572
“A data-rich Gartner webinar deck with strong metric-anchored titles in the middle but a missing thesis-up-front and no recommendation close — useful as a teaching example of quantitative chart titling, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis up-front — the Russia-Ukraine cover (p.3) is not answered by an executive summary slide; the viewer waits until p.9 for framing
52
narrative
Gartner Introduction 2025
“A well-crafted investor introduction with a strong opening thesis and several exemplary quantified action titles, but structurally a company tour - use individual slides (pp. 3, 17, 29, 35) as Storymakers title-writing exemplars, not the overall architecture.”
↓ Repeated identical divider title 'Gartner: Who We Are' across six slides destroys MECE signaling