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 27 / 27
25
opening
MARKET DATA FROM SECONDARY SOURCES
“A secondary-research data tour disguised as a deck — useful as a counter-example of methodology-first structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation anywhere — the deck is a methodology demonstration ('here is how we pull secondary data'), not an argument
25
opening
Ipsos Issues Index Mar25 Charts
“A competently executed monthly data tracker, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing synthesis slide flatten genuinely interesting trend data into a chart catalogue.”
↓ No thesis or 'what changed this month' on the opening — the reader has to assemble the story themselves from 16 individual trend charts
25
opening
article monthlymarketmonitor july23
“A polished cross-asset reference monitor masquerading as a deck — useful as a data appendix template, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it has no opening thesis, no MECE pillars, no resolution, and almost exclusively topic-label titles.”
↓ Zero narrative arc — no Situation/Complication framing in the opening, no synthesis slide anywhere, no recommendation at the close (p.40 → glossary)
25
opening
immobilienfonds 20231231 en
“A reference booklet of peer benchmarks dressed as a deck — useful as raw material but a weak Storymakers exemplar; use only p.4 as a teaching case for insight titles, and treat the rest as a counter-example of topic-label dumps.”
↓ No thesis or executive summary in the first 3 slides — the reader never learns why this deck exists
22
opening
Ipsos Issues Index March 2025
“A disciplined tracker data report with strong callouts but zero Storymakers craft — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation flatten genuinely interesting findings.”
↓ Cover/opening is dead weight: p.1, p.2, p.3 are all variants of the title with no thesis, no headline finding, and no chart of the month
22
opening
Ipsos Issues Index Jan25
“A competent recurring data tracker, not a Storymakers artifact — use its callout discipline and parallel segmentation grid as small-scale teaching examples, but treat the overall structure (no thesis, topic-label titles, no recommendation) as a cautionary case of analytical dump dressed as a deck.”
↓ Titles p.2–3 are literally just 'January 2025' — two consecutive slides with a date as their header is a failure mode
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
22
opening
guide to the markets au
“An exemplary reference data-book and a poor Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach taxonomic MECE structure and chart cadence, but use it as a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, section dividers, and closing recommendation.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 81/81 slides use topic labels ('Inflation', 'Gold', 'Volatility') so the deck cannot be read by titles alone, violating the core Storymakers test
20
opening
Third Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard Gartner earnings/IR deck — competent as a reference document but a near-anti-pattern for Storymakers, useful only as a 'before' example to demonstrate why topic titles and appendix-heavy structures fail to tell a story.”
↓ Zero action titles across 27 pages — every header is a topic label, violating the most basic Storymakers principle
18
opening
HR Pulse Survey Presentation of results
“A competently organized survey reference document, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a negative example of how topic-ordered analytical dumps bury the insight and skip the recommendation act entirely.”
↓ Zero recommendations or 'so what' slides across 59 pages — the deck is 49 consecutive analyze_data slides with no resolution act
12
opening
gol 6
“This is a financial-product fact sheet with disclaimers, not a Storymakers consulting narrative — useful only as a counter-example of what happens when a document has no action titles, no arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are entirely absent — every page header is a product code or firm name (p1-11), so the deck has no insight scaffolding