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
130 matching · page 6 / 6
45
narrative
Global Report What Worries the World Jul 23 WEB
“A monthly IPSOS tracker with solid data hygiene and a roughly MECE spine, but written as a topic inventory rather than a story — useful as a negative example of title quality and closing weakness, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis or stakes slide in the opening — covers (p.1-2) are decorative, not setup
45
narrative
Barclays H1 2023 Review of Shareholder Activism 002 1
“A data-rich but structurally flat market review — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts and geographic MECE, but a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation gut the Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends at p.15 and transitions straight to contacts + appendix.
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
International Women's Day 2023 full report
“A clean, well-segmented IPSOS research report that leads with findings but ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of disciplined section architecture and well-written callouts, but a cautionary example of titles-as-survey-questions and missing 'so what' resolution.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.16, p.17, p.18, p.19, p.20 all share the title 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?'
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
38
narrative
MARKET DATA FROM SECONDARY SOURCES
“A secondary-research data tour disguised as a deck — useful as a counter-example of methodology-first structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation anywhere — the deck is a methodology demonstration ('here is how we pull secondary data'), not an argument
38
narrative
Better Processes for Data Analytics Insights
“A polished but structurally flat case-study catalog — useful as a sales sample bag, weak as a Storymakers exemplar; mine the quantified callouts for action-title rewrites, but do not use the deck's overall structure as a teaching reference.”
↓ No SCQA framing — p.2 'Our philosophy' is an aspirational statement, not a Situation/Complication that motivates the eight cases that follow
38
narrative
Global IPO Watch 2022
“A competent quarterly data bulletin with strong numbers and a thesis-bearing p.2 callout, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on action titles and ends without a recommendation — useful as a counter-example of why topic titles + appendix-as-ending kills narrative.”
↓ Zero recommendation or 'so what' — the deck ends on league tables and a disclaimer (p.12-14) with no implication for issuers, investors, or advisors
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