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
726 matching · page 28 / 31
45
narrative
wipoapiday2023 o neill
“A competent Gartner-style trends briefing with quantified data and a recognizable framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is an analytical dump that lacks thesis, recommendation, and close — useful for teaching action-title rewrites, not narrative architecture.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck never tells the audience what to do with the trend data (no 'recommendation' or 'next_steps' slide type appears).
45
narrative
EY Academic Resource Center – mission
“A curriculum catalog masquerading as a deck — the Helix worked example and Tufte build are useful teaching artifacts, but the overall structure is a topic dump with no thesis, repeated titles, and a diluted close, so it is a counter-example of Storymakers discipline rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides titled 'Analytics mindset competency framework' or 'Master case study guide' with no differentiating action titles — the reader cannot navigate by page header
45
narrative
The Shopping Centre Handbook 4.0
“A competent Spanish retail-real-estate market handbook whose analytical middle is usable as a teaching example for KPI-page cadence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: topic-label titles, no call to action, and an S→A→A structure that ends on observation rather than resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere — the 'What is Next?' section (pp 26-30) ends on description, then the deck closes with a team bio (p 31)
45
narrative
The Logistics Property Handbook 4.0 Investment & Financing Keys
“A competent but inert market handbook with pockets of strong declarative titling in the regional KPI sections; use p.10/p.13/p.16 as action-title teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which lacks both a thesis and a close.”
↓ No thesis slide and no recommendation slide — 27 pages without a 'so what' makes this a reference document rather than a persuasive deck
45
narrative
Deloitte Global 2024 Gen Z and Millennial Survey Country profile: Netherlands
“A competent survey-data country report organised as a topic dump with noun-label titles and no arc or close — use it as a counter-example of what happens when action titles and resolution are missing, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Situation→Complication→Answer→Resolution arc: p.2 jumps straight from methodology into a topic parade with no central tension or thesis
45
narrative
2023 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey
“A credible data-rich survey report with strong callouts and metrics, but structurally a topic-tour with question-form titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how to put insights in the title bar, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are almost uniformly questions rather than answers (p.8, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.21, p.23, p.25, p.26) — the reader has to mine callouts to extract the so-what
45
narrative
Everest Group Retail Services
“A reprinted analyst-badge marketing asset, not a Storymakers deck — useful only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and appendix-as-closer; do not use as an exemplar.”
↓ Pages 5-11 are labelled only «Cognizant profile (page X of 7)» — seven consecutive topic-label titles with no insight, the single worst Storymakers violation in the deck.
45
narrative
Everest Group RCM Operations
“A reprinted analyst-report vendor profile with one good action title (p.4) and six dead topic-label slides — useful as a negative example for Storymakers training on action titles and missing closes, not as a structural exemplar.”
↓ Six consecutive 'Cognizant profile (page N of 6)' slides (p.5–p.10) are a topic dump with zero insight-bearing titles — the reader cannot scan and know what each page claims
45
narrative
incident response insights january 2025
“A short analytical IR briefing with strong quantified callouts but no story arc — use the data slides as a content example, not the structure, since it lacks opening thesis, MECE pillars, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No thesis or SCQA setup in the first 3 slides — reader is dropped into p.2 KPIs with no stakes
45
narrative
SUBC Barclays 2019 F.pdf.downloadasset
“Investor/corporate-overview deck masquerading as a story: useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and missing complication flatten a narrative into a capabilities brochure.”
↓ Opening 5 slides (cover, Subsea 7, capabilities, CSR, segments) bury any thesis — no stake, no question, no answer
45
narrative
HY24 BBPLC Client Information
“A competent credit-information factsheet with several well-crafted action titles, but it is a proof-point sequence, not a story — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing titles on individual slides, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ No SCQA opening — the deck never states why BBPLC strength matters now or to whom (creditors? counterparties? regulators?)
45
narrative
Barclays Bank PLC H12023 Client Information
“A competent creditor/investor information fact-sheet with pockets of good action-title craft on capital and liquidity, but structurally it is a topic sequence without SCQA, pillars, or a stated thesis — useful as an example of quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No opening thesis slide — pages 1-3 are cover and entity-structure context with no stated question or 'so what'
45
narrative
KSA Banking Pulse Q3 2024
“A competent quarterly data-pulse with strong insight-bearing action titles and consistent callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails the arc test — no thesis up front, no recommendation at the close — so use it to teach action-title writing, not narrative structure.”
↓ No answer-first opening — p.1-p.5 never state the deck's thesis; the reader waits until p.7 to learn earnings grew 5.3%
45
narrative
REINVENTION WITH GENERATIVE AI: CalPERS
“A capabilities-and-education primer dressed as a client deck — useful as a teaching example of clean case-study slides (p.17–20) but a cautionary tale on story arc, since the client and the recommendation are both buried until the last two pages.”
↓ CalPERS — the named client — does not appear in the narrative until p.24, turning a client deck into a generic GenAI capabilities primer
45
narrative
2021 P&C Underwriting Survey
“A rigorous but inert survey-findings readout — useful as a teaching example of consistent callouts and segmentation discipline, but a Storymakers anti-example for its noun-titles, missing recommendation act, and taxonomy-over-argument structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on open-end verbatims (p.57-58) with zero call to action
42
narrative
Attitudes towards a global plastic pollution treaty
“A clean, disciplined survey-data report that functions as a reference table — not a Storymakers exemplar; use it to teach what consistent callout discipline looks like, but flag it as the canonical example of question-titled, recommendation-less data dumping.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — the reader has to read the chart to learn the answer (e.g. p.20 'Ban chemicals used in plastic that are hazardous…?')
42
narrative
Namibia National Budget 2024-25
“Topic-labeled government budget walkthrough with no SCQA arc and a non-existent close — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and answer-first structure fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title-as-topic on every slide — there is not a single declarative action title in 25 pages
42
narrative
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
42
narrative
Banking and capital markets trends 2020: Laying the foundations for growth
“A reference catalog masquerading as a deck — useful as a topic checklist for an internal audit team but a poor Storymakers exemplar; cite it only as a counter-example of how topic-labels and pagination suffixes erase narrative.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 88 slides and not one declarative finding in the title bar
42
narrative
rapporto di sostenibilita ey italia eng
“A competent corporate sustainability report with a genuinely MECE three-pillar spine and strong KPI callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar — topic-label titles, six slides titled '2022', and an appendix-fade ending mean it should be used as a counter-example for title rewriting and answer-first openings, not as a structural model.”
↓ Six different slides titled simply '2022' (pp.31, 41, 55, 57, 66, 77) — a critical title-quality failure that hides the insight on each page
42
narrative
ey ivca monthly pe vc roundup february 2023
“A competent monthly data roundup that is structurally a reference document, not a story — useful as an example of clean section dividers and metric-led callouts, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no thesis-led opening, no Complication-Resolution arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ No recommendation or outlook close — deck ends in EY service marketing (p.26–31) and contacts, abandoning the reader after the data
42
narrative
IoT Big Data Value Creation
“An atmospheric thought-leadership deck that sets up a topic without ever delivering an answer — useful as a cautionary example of strong context with no Resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closes on 'challenges' (p.17) and a Clarke quote (p.18) instead of an answer
42
narrative
Global Economics Intelligence June 2023
“A disciplined regional macro digest with strong MECE pillars and number-bearing titles, but it is a descriptive intelligence product rather than a Storymakers narrative — useful as a teaching example for action-titling and pillar structure, not for story arc or close.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck terminates on Brazil data (p27) and logo (p28), with zero call to action or implications
42
narrative
Global Economics Intelligence Feb 2024
“A competent macro-monitor dashboard with strong quantitative titles in spots, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary tale of a geographic topic-dump with no arc, no tension, and no close — use it to teach what 'analytical build without narrative' looks like.”
↓ No closing synthesis slide — deck terminates on a Brazil PMI chart (p.28) with no 'implications' or recommendation