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 24 / 31
52
opening
inv research 20210422 investing and covid 19 0
“A competent Ipsos research report with a front-loaded exec summary but a topical, SCQA-free structure and no recommendation - mine p.6-9 and p.31-32 as teaching examples of insight titles, but do NOT use the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere in the deck; closes on a neutral stat (p.55) then appendix and contact info (p.60)
52
opening
2020 am investor day
“A solid investor-day positioning deck with a strong quantitative spine and segment build, but missing the Complication and a memorable close - use the segment-build (pp.7-12) and KPI commitment (p.17) as teaching examples, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Complication act - deck never names a threat, gap, or burning platform, so the 'why act now' tension is absent
50
opening
European Distressed Credit Watch List
“A competently produced reference catalogue of distressed European credits with strong market-context data on the front end, but it abandons narrative craft at the case-study section and has no close — useful as a teaching example of what 'analytical dump with no resolution' looks like, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide anywhere — the deck ends mid-catalogue at p.39 (Winoa) then jumps to contacts
50
opening
UAE Health Sector Pulse Quarter 1, 2021
“A competent market-pulse report with strong per-slide action titles but no SCQA spine and a one-slide recommendation — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not of narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA opening: p.1–5 are cover/TOC/foreword/bios/'At a Glance' — the reader gets no thesis or stakes for five pages.
50
opening
Out @ Work Barometer
“A competently titled survey readout with strong individual insight slides (especially the p.11 paradox) but no resolution act — use it as a teaching example for action-title discipline, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide — the deck ends at p.13 on a diagnosis ('missing out on talent')
50
opening
Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter
“Solid BCG explanatory brief with a coherent 'leapfrogging' throughline and strong US-China benchmarking, but structured as analytical build-up rather than a Storymakers story — thesis buried, dividers blank, recommendations absent — so use the market-sizing and leapfrogging sections as title-writing exemplars, not the overall arc.”
↓ Thesis is buried — the 'leapfrogging' answer doesn't arrive until p.25/26, and there is no upfront thesis slide summarizing the deck's point of view
50
opening
Deloitte Global Treasury Survey
“A competent survey-findings report with clean pillar structure and strong data, but not a Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach MECE sectioning and data callouts, not narrative arc or action titling.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p.20 on a trend observation before 'Contact us'
50
opening
GenAI retail commercial banking
“A competent survey-findings deck with strong declarative action titles in its analytical middle, but it reads as a research dump rather than an argument — use pp.8-18 as a teaching example for metric-anchored titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'what to do about it' slide — the deck ends at p.22 with a use-case list and never resolves the S→C→A→R arc
50
opening
Familiar challenges new approaches
“A competent survey report with a clean three-pillar spine but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example for chapter dividers and quote-slide pacing, not for narrative arc.”
↓ Many data slides ship the raw 'Exhibit N: <question text>' as the title (p.7, p.10, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.24, p.30) — the chart caption is doing the work an action title should
50
opening
2024 US CEO Outlook Pulse Survey
“A survey-results pulse report dressed as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-label titles and a missing resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends on an ESG data point (p.10) and a disclaimer (p.11) with zero recommendations, implications, or call to action
50
opening
Hospital Priorities 2023 China Edition: Strategic Implications for Pharma Companies
“A well-researched, well-titled data-read on Chinese hospital priorities that reads like a survey report rather than a Storymakers narrative — use it as a teaching example for declarative chart titles, not for story architecture.”
↓ No answer/resolution act: p.14 asks 'How can pharmas interact more productively with hospital customers?' but no recommendation slide follows
50
opening
Mergers and Acquisitions in LatAm: Evolution and prospects
“A well-sourced LatAm M&A market scan with strong action titles and credible data, but it reads as an analytical report rather than a Storymakers deck — use it as an example of declarative titling and country deep-dive structure, not as a model for narrative arc or closing.”
↓ No closing recommendation, outlook, or 'so what' slide — deck terminates on Peru analysis (p.30) then bio + disclaimer
50
opening
The Quantum Technology Monitor December 2020
“A competent state-of-the-market monitor with strong declarative analytical titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — use the middle slides as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis on slides 1-3 — the reader has to wait until p.4 to learn the deck's point of view
50
opening
Quantum Technology Monitor 2022
“A well-titled, data-rich industry monitor with strong slide-level discipline but no narrative arc or recommendation — useful as a teaching example of action-titling and callout craft, not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA or thesis slide in the first 5 pages — p.2 'What does this document provide?' is a meta-description, not a stake
50
opening
Responding to Covid-19 (2021)
“A competent COVID-19 reference almanac with strong action titles and clear callouts, but it lacks an SCQA frame and ends in a marketing CTA — useful as a teaching example for action-title and callout craft, not for narrative architecture.”
↓ No SCQA setup in the opening: p.1-3 are cover/intro/TOC and p.6 is a generic 'summary facts' page rather than a thesis
50
opening
ovid-19 Special Primer (2020)
“A well-evidenced topical primer with strong declarative titles but no Storymakers narrative arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title craft and chart-level rigor, not for deck-level story design.”
↓ No thesis slide and no synthesis slide — p.2 openly frames this as a 'round-up,' so 7 sections sit side-by-side with no unifying argument
50
opening
Vitamins & Dietary Supplements Market trends – Overview
“A competent PwC market-overview deck with strong declarative titles on data slides, but it is a report not a story — use slides 8-13 as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, 'so what,' or call-to-action slide — the deck stops at the last regional forecast (p.22) and jumps straight to Contacts (p.23)
50
opening
Medical Affairs Outlook Report
“A competent industry-outlook report with a recognizable arc and a few strong action titles, but it leads with topic instead of thesis and ends in platitude — useful as a 'callouts done right' example, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Opening (p.1–3) never states the thesis — the executive summary callout is a vague consensus statement, not the answer
50
opening
Presentation to Regional Economic Prosperity Management Board
“A solid diagnostic mid-section bookended by a generic opening and a missing close — useful as a teaching example for action-title chains (slides 5-7), not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative arc.”
↓ No recommendation or decision slide — the deck ends at a projection (p.10) with no 'therefore' for the Management Board
50
opening
Project Spiritus Final report Market Study
“Textbook EY market study with exemplary action-title craft and strong MECE scaffolding, but it's a diagnosis without a prescription — use the section openings and title discipline as a teaching example, not the overall arc.”
↓ No Resolution act — closing growth-opportunities slide (p.92) is descriptive, not prescriptive; deck never tells the reader what to do
50
opening
The Future of Procurement: Why is Technology Lagging Behind?
“A solid analytical middle wrapped in a bloated front-matter and a vendor-plus-change-mgmt tail — useful as a teaching example for action titles in the p.14–25 run, but not a Storymakers exemplar for overall arc, opening, or close.”
↓ Five-slide front-matter runway (p.1–5) before any argument; no thesis-forward opener
50
opening
The Swiss FoodTech Ecosystem 2021
“A well-researched ecosystem atlas masquerading as a deck — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks thesis, tension, and recommendation; teach it as a cautionary case for landscape reports that forget to make an argument.”
↓ No recommendation or call to action anywhere — the deck is a landscape map with no 'so what.'
50
opening
WORLD REFUGEE DAY
“A competent Ipsos research deliverable with strong data discipline but weak narrative craft — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closing structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Slide titles are survey questions, not insights — p.30 'Q. My country's national labour market' should read something like 'Views on labour-market impact split nearly 50/50, with sharpest negativity in Türkiye and Hungary'
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