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
16 matching
78
opening
World Economic Forum Digital Transformation Initiative: In collaboration with Accenture
“A competent WEF/Accenture summary deck with a strong answer-first opener and a clean four-pillar analytical spine, but let down by topic-label titles and a closing that names a destination instead of issuing a recommendation - useful as an example of pillar architecture and quantified callouts, not of Storymakers-grade action titles.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not claims - p.5 'Asset lifecycle management' and p.6 'Grid optimization and aggregation' force the reader to hunt for the insight in the callouts
74
opening
Re-focus your talent lens: Abundance awaits
“Solid thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar MECE spine and strong number-bearing action titles, but it ends on reflective questions instead of a concrete call to action - use it as an exemplar of SCQA setup and pillar structure, not of closing.”
↓ Ending is soft - p.33 'Unlocking future growth' poses questions and p.34 'Closing thoughts' offers 'three questions for immediate contemplation' instead of a concrete CTA or engagement offer
65
opening
Global Banking Annual Review 2023 Nordics
“A solid analytical landscape brief with strong quantified action titles, but it stops at 'here is the picture' without a recommendation — use p.2 and p.7 as title-writing exemplars, not the deck as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or so-what slide — p.8 ends on a data table about headwinds, not a call to action
62
opening
Making finance the predictive powerhouse How to create an agile finance function
“A competently structured four-pillar POV with a memorable 85/15 hook and good case-study cadence, but generic repeated titles and a limp 'Contact us' close make it a teaching example for pillar rhythm — not for action titles or closings.”
↓ Repeated generic titles ('What's happening', 'Where it's working', 'What agility looks like') across pillars waste action-title real estate and force readers to decode topic rather than takeaway
62
opening
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
62
opening
Ipsos Health Service Report 2024 Global Charts
“A market-research findings report dressed as a deck — strong opening stat and clean three-pillar tour, but it uses survey questions as titles, never resolves into a recommendation, and is therefore a Storymakers anti-example for titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Survey questions used as slide titles ~15 times (p.7, 20-28, 30-40, 42-47) — the action title is doing none of the storytelling work, callouts have to carry it
60
opening
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)
60
opening
karen ward isfw
“A competent house-view market outlook with strong declarative chart titles but a flat pillar structure and a marketing-style close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft, not for end-to-end Storymakers arc.”
↓ 'Big themes' (p.2, p.11) is a topic label where the most important slides should carry the sharpest action titles
58
opening
Nordic Circular Economy Playbook 2.0
“A competent Accenture playbook with strong per-industry diagnostic titles and a clear four-pillar spine, but template-reused slide titles, a solutions-before-problems ordering, and a non-directive close make it a useful teaching example for industry-by-industry analytical builds rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five slides (p19, p22, p25, p28, p31) share essentially the same action title — template reuse that reads as copy-paste and dilutes each industry's insight
58
opening
20230608 172439 CWCU 9YRZMYZ26FO0PKXJ.1
“A competent quarterly REIT investor update with strong, metric-driven action titles, but it is a topic-organised reporting pack rather than a Storymakers narrative — use slides like p20, p16 and p5 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck's structure.”
↓ No complication act — the deck never names a problem, risk or strategic question, so there is nothing for the analysis to resolve
55
opening
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? JULY 2023
“A disciplined tracker with strong callout hygiene but weak Storymakers craft — useful as a teaching example of consistent metric anchoring, not of narrative arc or action-title writing.”
↓ Action titles are nouns ('CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION: JAPAN' p24, '7 | CLIMATE CHANGE' p17) — the deck hides its own findings inside callout boxes
55
opening
uefa weuro 2025 approaching the summit en may 2025
“Competent EY economic-impact report with a disciplined 5-pillar measurement spine and strong numeric callouts, but the topic-label titles and missing closing synthesis make it a useful exemplar for MECE structure — not for Storymakers action-title or resolution craft.”
↓ Topic-label titles dominate (e.g. 'THE PROFESSIONAL GAME' p.19, 'BROADCAST AND SPONSORSHIP POTENTIAL' p.20) — none of the punchy stats reach the action title
52
opening
Global Business Services Performance improvement
“A thought-leadership whitepaper in deck form — usable as a 'numbered-guide scaffolding' example but not a Storymakers exemplar because it skips the answer-first opening, uses imperative topic titles instead of insight titles, and breaks its own six-step MECE promise.”
↓ Action titles are imperatives ('Develop…', 'Focus on…', 'Extend…') rather than insight-bearing declaratives
45
opening
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.
42
opening
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
40
opening
Multi-regional transmission model
“A competent analytical build-up of a proprietary simulation tool that collapses in the final act — useful as a teaching example for problem-framing and quantified callouts, but a cautionary tale on section architecture, topic-label titles, and the absence of a closing recommendation.”
↓ Broken section architecture: Roman numerals skip II and V, 'IV' appears twice (p.30 and p.33), and p.35 is a one-character divider ('U') — this alone signals the deck never got a final pass