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
30 matching · page 2 / 2
52
opening
2019 Global Shared Services Survey Report 11th biannual edition
“A competently structured Deloitte survey-findings report with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — use it as a teaching example of the gap between insightful callouts and weak action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — p7, p8, p10, p13, p15, p16, p18, p19, p21, p22 all read as interview prompts rather than conclusions
50
opening
Big shifts, small steps Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022
“A solid analytical benchmark survey with clear pillars and many insight-bearing data titles, but it reads as a topic dump rather than a Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for opening, synthesis, or closing.”
↓ Call-to-action 'What can you do?' is placed at p.7 — before the executive summary at p.9 — orphaning the recommendation from the analysis that should justify it
40
opening
Ipsos Global Health Service Monitor 2023 WEB
“A well-organized survey data report, not a Storymakers deck — use the section scaffolding and THE HEADLINES pattern as a navigational example, but it is an anti-example of action titling and has no closing argument.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' act: the deck ends in appendix + methodology + corporate slide (p.30–p.45) with zero synthesis
40
opening
LCG SMA
“A polished but conventional asset-manager pitchbook — strong on credentials and a few sharp action titles, but it buries the real 2025 story and ends without a recommendation; useful as a teaching example of topic-organized brochure structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ No SCQA opening — pages 1–5 establish firm scale ($4.1T) but never name the question the deck answers; the reader has to wait until p.18 to find the real story (2025 underperformance).
28
opening
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
22
opening
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