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
737 matching · page 17 / 31
60
opening
University of Arizona 2018 Strategic Plan
“Solid MECE pillar architecture with quantified callouts, but topic-label titles and a missing closing slide make it an institutional planning document, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a teaching case for how strong structure cannot rescue weak action titles.”
↓ Action titles are nouns, not insights — every initiative slide is titled 'Pillar X Initiatives (n of m)' with zero takeaway
60
opening
PwC’s 24th Annual Global CEO Survey
“A solid annual-survey communication piece with strong data-driven titles in the middle, but it is a thematic tour rather than a Storymakers-grade narrative — useful as a reference for action-title craft on data slides, not as an exemplar of arc or close.”
↓ No resolution or recommendation slide — the cover promises 'a leadership agenda to take on tomorrow' but the body never delivers an agenda; p.17 closes with reflection, not action
60
opening
Internet Advertising Revenue Report
“A competently-titled industry data report whose individual slide titles are above-average Storymakers craft, but the deck as a whole is a category-by-category data tour with no SCQA arc and no recommendation -- use slides 5-11 as a teaching example of action titles, not the deck structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: there is a Situation (growth) and Complication (COVID) but no Question or Resolution -- the deck never tells the audience what to do with the findings
60
opening
Global Top 100 companies 2023
“A competent annual benchmarking publication with strong analytical action titles in the middle, but it is a data report — not a Storymakers narrative — because it has no complication, no recommendation, and dissolves into ranking tables; use slides 5-8 as title-craft exemplars, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ No Complication or Resolution act — the deck never asks 'so what should leaders do?' and ends in ranking tables (p.17-21)
60
opening
Introduction to a dynamic market with numerous investment opportunities
“Competent banker primer with strong analytical action titles but a missing thesis up front and a marketing soft-close — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft on analytical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Slide 3 'Executive Summary' is a label, not a synthesis — the deck never delivers a one-line thesis up front
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
The Reinvention of Retail Banking: How focused business models can unlock value
“A competent strategy& thought-leadership pamphlet with a recognisable S-C-A-R spine and a strong recommendation triad, but the framework core and section numbering wobble enough that it works better as a teaching example for editorial titles and closing structure than as a clean Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Section numbering jumps 03 -> 05 between p.9 and p.16 with no visible 04 divider, breaking the MECE promise of the pillar structure
60
opening
Aluminum Cans Market Assessment - Australia
“Solid analytical fact-base with declarative titles, but it's a research dossier rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and MECE benchmarking, not for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No recommendation or resolution — the deck ends on p.34 with an economics observation and p.35 logo; reader is left to infer the 'so what'
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
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
Third-party governance and risk management The threats are real
“A data-rich Deloitte survey report with a clear diagnostic thesis ('execution gap') but no Resolution act and too many topic-label titles — use pp.22/26/28 as examples of good action titles, not the overall deck as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends on technology analysis (p.35) then jumps straight to bios/contacts with zero recommendations or next-steps slide
60
opening
ipsos the perils of perception 2024
“A competent research-findings report with a clear thesis but no resolution - useful as a teaching example of how strong opening callouts and one well-titled correlation slide (p.35) get drowned by question-as-title data dumps and a missing recommendations act.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights - p.13/14/15 all share the same interrogative title with no takeaway
60
opening
Ipsos World Refugee Day 2024 Global Report PUBLIC 0
“A competent global survey report with strong synthesis sentences but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for why action titles matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — p.11, p.12, p.17, p.18, p.30–34 all use 'Q. ...' verbatim where an action title belongs
60
opening
does the us have a positive influence around the world ipsos survey 2025
“A short data-release deck that hooks with a question but never answers it — useful as a cautionary example of how strong cover questions get buried by topic-label data slides and a contact-card close.”
↓ No answer slide: the cover poses a question but no slide explicitly resolves it with a headline takeaway
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
1681885970281
“A competent sell-side thematic outlook with strong callout writing but no story arc or recommendation — useful as an example of how callouts should sound, not of how a Storymakers deck should be structured.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck terminates on Theme 10 (p.10) and immediately enters 8 pages of disclosures with zero synthesis, recommendation, or 'how to position' slide.
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
ey og q2 2021 price point client deck
“A competent quarterly market briefing with strong callouts and quantified analysis, but it stops at 'here is what we see' and never reaches 'here is what to do' — useful as a teaching example for analytical build-up and editorial pull-quotes, not for storymaking structure or action titles.”
↓ No Resolution act — deck ends in 4 appendix slides plus contacts, with zero recommendation or 'what to do about it'
60
opening
FIBA faninsights juli24
“A competent Nielsen data-tour report with strong callouts but weak narrative spine — useful as an example of clean section structure and quantified pull-quotes, not as a Storymakers exemplar of action titles or SCQA closure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' — the deck stops at p.16 demographics and jumps straight to 'Thank you!' (p.17), leaving FIBA with data but no advice
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