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.

Narrative Opening Closing Title quality
0 5 25 60 122 257 288 293 36 0
1086 reviewed decks · mean 59.8 · click a bar to filter
suggests: move ✕ clear all

Search by prescribed fix

most common opening verb across 3405 suggestions
add 765 rewrite 729 replace 647 insert 374 move 146 collapse 137 promote 130 convert 89 expand 44 tighten 35 rename 35 compress 30 reframe 30 lead 28 either 24 cut 22 consolidate 22 restructure 20 de-duplicate 19 group 19 fix 16 sharpen 15 introduce 15 upgrade 14

Filtered reviewed decks

146 matching · page 7 / 7
28 opening
PwC · 2018 · 36p
Global Top 100 companies by market capitalisation
“A competent annual data benchmark with strong page-level numeric titles but no story arc — useful as a teaching example of insight-bearing chart titles, not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ Methodology and contacts (p.3–5) are placed BEFORE any finding, burying the lead by 6 pages
12 opening
GoldmanSachs · 11p
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