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
635 matching · page 14 / 27
60
opening
Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, Spring 2019
“A solid analytical market-update deck with above-average action titles and a real attempt at tension on p.9-10, but it has no recommendation act and ends in administrative pages — useful as an example of strong title craft, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends with team bios, contacts, methodology and a logo (p.11-15)
60
opening
POPULISM IN 2024
“A rigorous data report dressed as a deck — strong sample and a useful proprietary index, but it reads as a crosstab parade with no recommendation, so it's a counter-example for Storymakers titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p47 on a spending crosstab and then drifts into methodology and corporate boilerplate (p48-51)
60
opening
WHAT WORRIES THE WORLD? 2024
“A competently produced survey-data release with disciplined callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution; useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing callouts, not of Storymakers narrative structure.”
↓ Action titles are nouns, not insights — 'Current Economic Situation' repeats verbatim on p.35–46 instead of saying what each country shows
60
opening
Review of 2024 capital markets performance
“A competent McKinsey market-review chartbook with strong action titles and a clever median-vs-mean build, but it lacks a resolution act and a real exec summary — useful as a teaching example for declarative titling, not for end-to-end Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No resolution act: the deck stops at p.13 with a trend observation rather than a recommendation or 'implications for executives' close
60
opening
Turkey power generation evolution and top 100 players by capacity
“A competent league-table almanac with a strong analytical opener but no recommendation or close — use pp.3-6 as an example of declarative action titles, not the deck as a Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — p.16 is literally 'Thank you' with no next-steps slide
60
opening
The individual health insurance market in 2023
“A solid analytical market briefing with disciplined, number-led action titles, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp. 5–12 to teach insight-bearing titles, not the deck's overall arc, which lacks Complication, pillars, and Resolution.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so-what' — deck ends on p. 12 data and a wordmark (p. 13)
60
opening
ipsos predictions 2025 survey report
“A topically MECE survey read-out with a strong unease setup and three excellent analytical 2x2s, but the action titles are mostly survey prompts and the deck ends in methodology — use slides 28/69/71 as title-quality exemplars, not the deck as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ Closing is an appendix dump (Methodology p.75-76, 'For more information' p.77) with zero synthesis, recommendation, or call back to the opening unease theme
60
opening
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
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
Elevating internal audit’s role: The digitally fitfunction 2019 State of the Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar build and disciplined 'Dynamics' protagonist framing, but soft stakes, a delayed thesis, and quote-slide padding keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and protagonist framing, not for narrative tension or BLUF openings.”
↓ Soft complication — no slide quantifies the cost of being non-Dynamic (the 81% who aren't), so stakes never sharpen
60
opening
ey og q3 2020 price point client deck
“A competent periodic market-outlook brief with one good editorial instinct (the 'divergence' theme) that it fails to pay off — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and an unresolved thesis flatten an otherwise well-sequenced analysis.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Market fundamentals' appears 3x (p.5–7) and 'Gas price outlook' 2x (p.10–11) with no differentiation
60
opening
ey global consumer health survey 23 global findings and highlights v2
“A research-report-as-deck: solid quote-titled findings and a usable 2x2, but structured as a six-country data catalog with no closing recommendation — use the country-slide titling style as a teaching example, not the deck's overall architecture.”
↓ 14 slides titled 'Summary, continued' (pp.6-11, 13-15, 17-19) — a navigational failure that destroys reader orientation and signals the deck wasn't given proper action titles
60
opening
ey norwegian crypto adoption survey v2
“A competent survey-findings readout with strong action titles but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example for declarative slide titles, not for Storymakers structure.”
↓ No closing recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.13 then dumps into appendix/disclaimer (pp.14–16)
60
opening
Nielsen 2022 Audio Today How America Listens Jun22 FINAL
“A data-driven advocacy deck for radio that opens with a strong hook and insight-bearing titles but has no complication, no recommendation, and ends in an appendix — useful as a teaching example for action titles, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never poses a tension for advertisers nor recommends an action
60
opening
06.10.2022 MS Financials Conference
“A competent IR-conference growth narrative with strong numeric action titles and paired-ellipsis chaining, but missing a Complication and a real close - use p.7-10 as a teaching example for title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No explicit Complication or tension - the deck never tells the audience what's at risk or why this matters now, so the whole argument is 'more of a good thing' rather than problem/solution
60
opening
state of workplace study
“A competent research/thought-leadership report with stats-driven callouts and a topical three-pillar spine, but it buries the recommendation — use p8, p9, and p21 as teaching examples of action titles, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No complication slide — tension is implied by stats but never dramatized, so p8-p29 reads as an analytical dump
60
opening
cb product fraud mitigation success
“A short, competent client-facing teaser with one strong proof point but a buried lede and a generic close — usable as a Storymakers example of action titles, not of arc construction.”
↓ Answer-first violated: the headline result on p.2 should lead, not follow the threat slide on p.1
60
opening
Keynote address
“Solid analytical briefing with above-average action titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the close — useful as an exemplar of evidence-anchored analytical slides, not as a Storymakers narrative arc.”
↓ No closing recommendation — slide 21 is just 'THANK YOU!', wasting the highest-recall slot in the deck
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
60
opening
Arion Bank Fireside chat slides
“A competent investor-update deck with strong quantified action titles and clean macro framing, but it is analytical reportage rather than a Storymakers narrative — use pp.7–10 as exemplars of insight-bearing titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No complication or tension: the deck never names what is at stake or what decision the audience must make
58
opening
Blueprint for Service Success
“A competently structured consulting deck with a real S-C-A-R arc and a strong segmentation frame, but weakened by topic-label titles and a buried thesis — use its segmentation and roadmap slides as teaching examples, not its opening or titling.”
↓ Titles frequently fall back to figure labels ('Figure 1a', 'Figure 2c', 'Figure 5') instead of stating the insight the figure proves
58
opening
Modern Networks
“A structurally sound three-imperative consulting argument with strong quantified action titles in the middle — teach the p.17-32 resolution arc as the exemplar, but flag the buried opening and generic CTA as the anti-patterns to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — p.1 cover and p.2-3 cases arrive before the thesis on p.4-5, costing the reader the first 4 pages
58
opening
The Value Multiplier: Intelligent Operations Maturity
“Structurally disciplined four-lever POV with a genuine S-C-A-R skeleton, but flat noun-phrase titles and a buried thesis make it a good MECE teaching example and a weak action-title exemplar.”
↓ Buries the headline: the 2.8X profitability stat sits in p.3's callout instead of being the opening title
58
opening
e-Conomy SEA 2021 Roaring 20s: The SEA Digital Decade
“A high-craft thought-leadership report with exemplary action-title discipline and clean MECE pillars, but it opens procedurally and trails off into a country appendix instead of landing a recommendation -- use its titles and section architecture as a Storymakers teaching example, not its opening or closing.”
↓ Opening burns 7 slides on front matter before the thesis lands at p.8 -- no hook or stakes in the first 5