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 suggestions↑ Top 5 on narrative
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A textbook Roland Berger thought-leadership deck with excellent action titles and a clean SCQA arc — use the title craft and stakes-first opening as exemplars, but flag the missing MECE dividers and the under-developed recommendation as the parts a Storymakers reader should not copy.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A well-crafted historical build-up that earns its thesis but stops at problem-framing — use slides 2-8 as a teaching example of inductive action titles, not the deck as a whole, since the recommendation act is missing.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “Tight, answer-first scenario-planning deck with strong analytical spine but a thin recommendation tail — use p.2 and p.5-9 as Storymakers exemplars for executive summaries and quantified action titles, not for the closing arc.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A textbook McKinsey diagnosis deck with a strong quantified middle but a buried thesis and a stakeholder-cautious close — use p.4-15 as a teaching example for analytical buildup, not the opening or closing.” — McKinsey, 2010
- “A textbook McKinsey diagnostic deck with a clean SCQA arc and strong action titles, but it stops one slide short of a committed recommendation — use pp.16-25 as a teaching example of narrative pivoting, not the closing.” — McKinsey, 2016
- “Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.” — McKinsey, 2014
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 45 / 46
35
narrative
WORLD AFFAIRS
“A polished public-opinion survey report with strong section scaffolding but weak Storymakers DNA — it dumps findings instead of telling a story; use the priority-vs-preparation gap section (p32-35) as a teaching example of derived-metric analysis, but not the structure or titling.”
↓ No executive answer up front: p3 'Key findings' is one page with a single 76% stat and no thesis, forcing the reader to assemble the message themselves
35
narrative
SAP Innovation Awards 2022 Entry Pitch Deck
“A template-driven awards submission with strong KPI evidence but no narrative spine — useful as a cautionary example of how rigid submission templates kill action titles and destroy the closing act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Fourteen consecutive slides titled 'Additional Information' (p.15–p.30) — the deck abandons titling discipline entirely in its second half
35
narrative
ipsos global perceptions of healthcare 2023
“A clean survey data-dump with strong callouts but no narrative, no insight titles, and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how to turn poll results into a Storymakers story, not as an exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.6-p.12 literally start with «To what extent do you agree or disagree…»
35
narrative
immobilienfonds 20231231 en
“A reference booklet of peer benchmarks dressed as a deck — useful as raw material but a weak Storymakers exemplar; use only p.4 as a teaching case for insight titles, and treat the rest as a counter-example of topic-label dumps.”
↓ No thesis or executive summary in the first 3 slides — the reader never learns why this deck exists
35
narrative
The shape of retail: Consumers and the new normal
“A raw survey appendix masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of what happens when action titles are left as question stems and the close is a contacts page.”
↓ Titles on p.3–p.6 are verbatim survey questions rather than insights — the reader must infer the takeaway
32
narrative
Ipsos Issues Index March 2025
“A disciplined tracker data report with strong callouts but zero Storymakers craft — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation flatten genuinely interesting findings.”
↓ Cover/opening is dead weight: p.1, p.2, p.3 are all variants of the title with no thesis, no headline finding, and no chart of the month
32
narrative
Ipsos Issues Index January 2025
“A competent recurring data tracker, but a weak Storymakers exemplar — use it only as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act drain narrative power from solid underlying data.”
↓ No executive summary or headline-finding slide — p.1–p.4 are all framing/cover material, so the reader hits raw issue trends with no thesis to test against.
32
narrative
article monthlymarketmonitor july23
“A polished cross-asset reference monitor masquerading as a deck — useful as a data appendix template, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no opening thesis, no MECE pillars, no resolution, and almost exclusively topic-label titles.”
↓ Zero narrative arc — no Situation/Complication framing in the opening, no synthesis slide anywhere, no recommendation at the close (p.40 → glossary)
32
narrative
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor 2022 charts
“A meticulously consistent research tabulation, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of how survey-question titles and an analysis-only arc bury a strong opening insight under 170 pages of undifferentiated charts.”
↓ ~180 of 186 titles are topic labels (e.g. p.45 'Financial services - It is good at what it does'), not declarative findings
32
narrative
Ipsos Issues Index Jan25
“A competent recurring data tracker, not a Storymakers artifact — use its callout discipline and parallel segmentation grid as small-scale teaching examples, but treat the overall structure (no thesis, topic-label titles, no recommendation) as a cautionary case of analytical dump dressed as a deck.”
↓ Titles p.2–3 are literally just 'January 2025' — two consecutive slides with a date as their header is a failure mode
32
narrative
GSBD Investor Presentation Q1 2023 vF
“A standard BDC earnings/reference deck — competent as financial disclosure but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titling and missing narrative acts.”
↓ Zero action titles across 14 slides — every title is a noun label (e.g. 'Quarterly Balance Sheet', 'Debt'), forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
30
narrative
Ipsos Issues Index Mar25 Charts
“A competently executed monthly data tracker, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide flatten genuinely interesting trend data into a chart catalogue.”
↓ No thesis or 'what changed this month' on the opening — the reader has to assemble the story themselves from 16 individual trend charts
30
narrative
e03d5b95 7f97 45dd 967f 891c3bf12198
“A weekly Goldman market-reference pamphlet dressed as a deck — useful as a data artifact but a poor Storymakers exemplar: it opens a thesis, drops it, and ends in disclaimers.”
↓ Opening thesis on passive ownership is dropped after p.5 and never resolved — the deck forgets its own question
30
narrative
Deloitte SEA CFO Forum Southeast Asia Business Outlook
“A services brochure dressed as a deck — useful as a teaching example of how a parallel-pillar capabilities dump fails the Storymakers tests (no SCQA, topic-label titles, firm-first opening, contacts-page ending), not as an exemplar to emulate.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis: the deck never names a Complication the CFO should care about, so every services block arrives unmotivated
28
narrative
WORLD AFFAIRS 2023
“A 92-page Ipsos survey-data report dressed as a deck — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles, a missing exec summary, and a 19-slide country dump destroy narrative; do NOT use as a Storymakers exemplar except to teach what to avoid.”
↓ No executive summary, no thesis slide, no recommendations slide — 92 pages and zero synthesis
28
narrative
mi guide to alternatives
“A best-in-class market reference compendium that is structurally the opposite of a Storymakers deck — use it to teach chart density and MECE asset-class coverage, but cite it as a counter-example for action titles, SCQA openings, and closing recommendations.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are cover/team/TOC/two charts, with no thesis or stakes established
28
narrative
mi gtm latam br en
“A reference-grade market almanac with strong data hygiene but no narrative — useful as a teaching example of MECE regional coverage and callout discipline, not of Storymakers structure or action-titling.”
↓ Zero action titles — every page title is a topic label ('Latin America: Politics' p.6, 'U.S.: The Fed and interest rates' p.34) leaving the audience to extract the insight themselves
28
narrative
mi daily gtm us
“This is JPMorgan's quarterly Guide to the Markets reference chartbook, not a persuasive consulting deck — it is best-in-class as a data atlas but a poor Storymakers exemplar; mine individual callouts (pp.16, 29, 41, 65) as examples of insight-bearing pull-quotes, but do not use the deck's structure as a narrative model.”
↓ Zero answer-first opening: pp.1-5 give no thesis or stakes, just cover/team/TOC and two unframed S&P charts
28
narrative
guide to the markets au
“An exemplary reference data-book and a poor Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach taxonomic MECE structure and chart cadence, but use it as a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, section dividers, and closing recommendation.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 81/81 slides use topic labels ('Inflation', 'Gold', 'Volatility') so the deck cannot be read by titles alone, violating the core Storymakers test
28
narrative
ipsos hisf world affairs report 2023 final
“A topic-indexed survey data dump with strong parallel structure but no thesis, no recommendation, and titles that are mostly category labels — use it as a counter-example of how to publish findings without a story, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary, key-findings page, or recommendation anywhere in 92 pages — the insight-per-slide ratio is close to zero for a reader skimming titles
28
narrative
HR Pulse Survey Presentation of results
“A competently organized survey reference document, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a negative example of how topic-ordered analytical dumps bury the insight and skip the recommendation act entirely.”
↓ Zero recommendations or 'so what' slides across 59 pages — the deck is 49 consecutive analyze_data slides with no resolution act
25
narrative
mi guide to the markets uk
“A best-in-class market reference atlas with consistent grammar and rich callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is the opposite of one — use it to teach exhibit hygiene and footnote discipline, never to teach narrative, action titles, or how to land a recommendation.”
↓ Zero executive summary or thesis page in the first 10 slides — the reader has no idea what JPM thinks before slide 50
25
narrative
guide to the markets asia
“A best-in-class market reference book judged against its own genre, but a near-zero Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach how reference decks differ from narrative decks, never as a model for action titles, SCQA, or pillar structure.”
↓ Zero action titles across 92 pages — every header is a topic label, forcing the reader to interpret each chart unaided
25
narrative
Scott Anthony Press Kit
“A functional press kit, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful only as a negative example of topic-label titles and a missing CTA close.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'SPEAKING TOPICS' (pp. 3-5) — no differentiation, no progression, reads as a topic dump