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 29 / 31
42
narrative
Our Impact Plan 2024
“A solid ESG disclosure document with strong quantification and case-study discipline, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a topic-taxonomy dump that buries insights behind noun titles and ends in an appendix — use the case-study craft and quantified callouts as teaching examples, not the structure or titling.”
↓ No closing act — last analytical content is Materiality methodology (pp.83–86), then 19 pages of appendix; deck ends on 'Contacts' (p.106) with no recommendation or call to commitment
42
narrative
ga sma presentation
“A polished but conventional institutional capabilities deck — strong as a reference for asset-management product disclosure conventions and a few good action titles (p.18, p.32), but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it buries its thesis, dodges its own narrative tension, and ends in an appendix instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Buried lead: no thesis or recommendation appears in the first five slides; the deck opens with firm-scale boilerplate ($4.1T) before saying anything about the SMA strategy itself
42
narrative
femke de keulenaer
“A competent secondary-research evidence pack with strong stat callouts but no narrative arc or recommendation - useful as a teaching example of how good data dies inside topic-label titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act - the deck terminates at p.17 data and jumps straight to 'THANK YOU!' on p.18
42
narrative
Ipsos Global Advisor Predictions 2024 Full Report web 0
“A clean, navigable annual survey readout that respects MECE structure but reads as a data dump — useful as a reference document, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because titles describe questions rather than answers and the deck never lands a recommendation.”
↓ Titles are survey items, not findings — e.g. p.27 and p.35 still carry the literal stem 'Q. For each of the following, please tell me how likely or unlikely you think they are to happen...?'
42
narrative
Halifax 2024 FINAL 3
“A rigorous IPSOS public-opinion data report with MECE bones but no story arc — useful as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act reduce even strong research to a reference document, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are ~80% topic labels with colon-suffix pattern (p.22–31 all read 'Confidence in Government Response: X'; p.44–62 all read 'World Influencers: X') — the reader has to decode every chart
42
narrative
3Q23 Investor Presentation GS
“A classic IR/positioning deck structured as a capabilities tour — strong quantified callouts and solid competitive benchmarks, but no SCQA arc, no recommendation, and topic-label titles dominate; use p7–p10 as a teaching example of competitive benchmarking, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution — deck never poses the question it is answering, and never lands a recommendation or ask
42
narrative
Reinforcing the New South Wales Southern Shared Network (HumeLink) PADR – EY Market Modelling
“A technically rigorous market-modelling report in deck clothing — useful as a counter-example of how burying the answer and using topic titles instead of action titles weakens even strong analysis; do not use as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide anywhere — the 'preferred option' (Option 3C) is never stated as a headline, only implied through a highlighted table row on p.11
42
narrative
Doing business in the Philippines 2021
“A well-researched Philippines investment-reference document dressed as a consulting deck — strong on data density and section navigation, but topic-ordered rather than argument-ordered, so use it as an example of what to avoid when teaching Storymakers action titles and closing acts.”
↓ No answer-first framing — the document never states a recommendation or decision it is trying to drive; the closest thing is the preface platitude on p.3
42
narrative
Digital Transformation NJ
“A credentials-led government capabilities pitch with strong case-study evidence but no SCQA arc, no NJ thesis, and a «Thank you» ending — useful as a teaching example of why action titles and a closing recommendation matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No NJ-specific thesis or stakes anywhere in the first five slides — opens with Deloitte's credentials (p.2) instead of the client's situation
42
narrative
2023 Global Marketing Trends
“A competent Deloitte Insights trends report with solid per-section rhythm and data discipline, but structurally a topic anthology that opens slowly, closes flat, and lets six 'just the number' placeholder titles slip through — use the intra-section frame→data→case→recommend pattern as a teaching example, not the overall narrative.”
↓ Six slides carry titles that are just the trend number ('03' on pp.11, 29, 31, 33; '04' on pp.39, 42) — the single biggest Storymakers violation in the deck.
42
narrative
Sustainability Corporate Citizenship
“A compliance-grade ESG disclosure with a decent MECE pillar skeleton but no SCQA, no action titles, and no resolution — usable as a teaching example of pillar structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Front-matter bloat: 3 of the first 5 slides (cover, forward-looking disclaimer, ToC) before any substance, and 'Overview' (p.4) carries no thesis
42
narrative
Barclays FY2023 ESG Investor Presentation
“A competent ESG disclosure deck structured as a taxonomy rather than a story — useful as a teaching example of MECE pillar dividers and KPI dashboards, but a cautionary example for Storymakers narrative: no complication, no recommendation, and a closing that dissolves into appendix.”
↓ No complication or recommendation — the 'Answer' act of SCQA is entirely absent; no slide says 'so here is what we are committing to next'
42
narrative
e-Conomy SEA 2023 report: Philippines
“A competent country-profile excerpt from a regional atlas with good action-title discipline on the data slides, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use slides 3, 4 and 6 as teaching cases for quantified action titles, and use the whole chapter as a counter-example of an analytical tour that never commits to an SCQA arc or recommendation.”
↓ No SCQA or recommendation anywhere — the chapter is pure atlas, with p.2 'Country overview' as a topic label rather than a question or complication
42
narrative
Digital Revolution Awards
“A two-part thought-leadership compendium with strong callouts and a few sharp action titles in the first half, but absent thesis, broken pillar promise, and a missing recommendation make it unfit as a Storymakers exemplar — mine individual slides, not the structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or call to action — deck ends at p.36 on the Bain logo with no synthesis slide
42
narrative
Charging Ahead Australia’s battery powered future
“This is an Accenture capabilities/credentials deck dressed as a research report — structurally tidy but narratively flat, with a context-heavy open and a case-study close; useful as an example of section-divider hygiene and MECE frameworks, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the first 5 slides — opening is pure decarbonization context, never states the answer (pp.1-5)
42
narrative
European Distressed Credit Watch List
“A competently produced reference catalogue of distressed European credits with strong market-context data on the front end, but it abandons narrative craft at the case-study section and has no close — useful as a teaching example of what 'analytical dump with no resolution' looks like, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends mid-catalogue at p.39 (Winoa) then jumps to contacts
40
narrative
Global Top 100 Companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual ranking publication with a few model action titles but no narrative arc and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how a research-report format collapses Storymakers structure, not as an exemplar of it.”
↓ No recommendation, no 'so what', no closing synthesis — deck ends in raw rankings (p.36-40) then Contact (p.41)
38
narrative
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? 2023
“Competent monthly survey-tracker report with strong stat callouts but topic-label titles, non-MECE sectioning, and no synthesis or call to action - useful as a 'before' teaching example for action-title rewriting and SCQA closure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution: deck closes on five country snapshots (p.24-28) and methodology (p.29) with zero synthesis, implication, or recommendation
38
narrative
IPSOS GLOBAL ADVISOR Global Perceptions of Healthcare
“A competently executed survey-results report that mistakes a question-by-question data walk for a narrative — useful as a counter-example of how repeating the survey question as the slide title kills any Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: zero Complication or Resolution slides — the deck is 9 consecutive analyze_data pages with no synthesis
38
narrative
2023 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, GOVERNANCE REPORT
“A conventional ESG disclosure document organized as a topic encyclopedia with strong evidentiary detail but topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for what action titles and a Resolution act should fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — the reader must read body text to learn what each page concludes
38
narrative
Risk Management as a catalyst for growth
“An awards-ceremony deck dressed as a thought-leadership piece — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and sponsor-driven sectioning suppress an otherwise defensible argument; not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the opening — the cover promises 'Risk Management as a catalyst for growth' but slides 1-9 deliver only logistics and a textbook definition; the 'catalyst' claim is never substantiated
38
narrative
Dissecting the 2021/22 Annual Budget Speech
“A reference-style budget recap with comprehensive data but no story, no point of view, and topic-label titles — useful as a counter-example of analytical dumping, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Repetitive boilerplate titles: 17 of 19 slides start with '2022/23 Annual Budget Speech:' — zero declarative action titles
38
narrative
Dissecting 2023-24 Budget Speech
“A topic-organised budget summary that is informationally competent but narratively inert — useful as a counter-example for action-title training, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or 'so-what' anywhere in the first 4 slides — the deck never tells the reader what to conclude about the 2023/24 budget
38
narrative
Dissecting 2021-22 Budget Speech
“Comprehensive but headline-free budget recap — useful as a teaching example of how topic-titled, sparse-callout decks fail the Storymakers test, not as an exemplar of narrative or action-title craft.”
↓ Titles are uniformly topic labels — '2021/22 Annual Budget Speech: <X>' — leaving the reader to derive the insight (p.4-20)