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 61.6
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
374 matching · page 15 / 16
35
title quality
IFRS 9 Impairment Banking Survey
“A dense, insight-rich benchmarking survey whose callouts do the storytelling while the titles abdicate it — useful as a reference document but a weak Storymakers exemplar because it lacks a resolution act and mistakes a numbered TOC for a narrative spine.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — p.6-17 all read '1. Impact assessment – [subtopic]' with the actual finding hidden in the callout
35
title quality
Project Management: Improving performance, reducing risk
“A competently-structured awareness deck for a board audience that uses question-based section dividers well but reads as a topic walkthrough rather than an argument — useful as a teaching example of how clear section spines do not by themselves produce a Storymakers narrative when action titles and a synthesized close are missing.”
↓ No answer-first slide in the opening — the thesis is delayed until p.10 and never restated as a single declarative claim
35
title quality
Global third-party risk management survey 2022
“A competently-pillared survey report with strong data callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — useful as a teaching example of MECE section architecture, not of Storymakers action titling or closing.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 46 slides and nearly all headlines repeat the section name instead of stating the takeaway
35
title quality
Ukraine Refugee Pulse
“A credible, humane survey report with a strong emotional close but weak Storymakers structure - use p.19-21 as a teaching example of empathetic closing, but do not model the title writing or opening on this deck.”
↓ Action titles are topic nouns ('BARRIERS', 'MENTAL HEALTH', 'CONNECTIVITY') - the insight lives in the callouts, not the titles
32
title quality
EY Georgia Medicaid Oral
“A competent but template-driven oral-proposal deck whose three-phase spine is reusable, but whose topic-label titles and missing thesis make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — useful as a 'before' case for retitling exercises.”
↓ Action titles are topic labels, not insights — 'Timeline', 'Lessons learned', 'Examples of measures', 'Phase one/two/three' force the audience to read the body to learn anything
32
title quality
WHAT THE FUTURE: WELLNESS
“An Ipsos editorial trends magazine masquerading as a deck — strong hook and a usable 'four tensions' framework, but the question-as-title habit and 15-slide quote appendix make it a counter-example for Storymakers, not an exemplar.”
↓ Question-titles dominate (p.6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) — the reader has to do the synthesis the deck should be doing
32
title quality
what worries the world december 2024
“A disciplined recurring data tracker with strong callout writing and clean pillar structure, but undermined by topic-label titles and no closing synthesis — use it as an example of how to write quantified callouts, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Title 'Current Economic Situation' appears on 9 consecutive slides (p.35–46) with no country or finding to differentiate them — readers cannot scan the section
30
title quality
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
30
title quality
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'
30
title quality
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
28
title quality
2023 Global Shared Services and Outsourcing Survey
“A credible data-rich survey report with strong callouts and metrics, but structurally a topic-tour with question-form titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how to put insights in the title bar, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Titles are almost uniformly questions rather than answers (p.8, p.11, p.13, p.18, p.19, p.21, p.23, p.25, p.26) — the reader has to mine callouts to extract the so-what
28
title quality
Reinforcing the New South Wales Southern Shared Network (HumeLink) PADR – EY Market Modelling
“A technically rigorous market-modelling report in deck clothing — useful as a counter-example of how burying the answer and using topic titles instead of action titles weakens even strong analysis; do not use as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide anywhere — the 'preferred option' (Option 3C) is never stated as a headline, only implied through a highlighted table row on p.11
28
title quality
ROAD TO RESILIENCE
“A competently structured annual survey readout with rich data in the callouts but topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how to convert callouts into action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Five consecutive slides titled 'INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHTS' (pp.12-16) signal a topic dump, not a MECE pillar; each should carry its sector name and an action verdict
28
title quality
Global Shared Services 2017 Survey Report
“A data-rich survey report with good insights trapped in the callouts — useful as a teaching case for how topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act can flatten strong evidence into a 'results walkthrough', not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 'Operations and governance' is reused verbatim across p.9–12 with zero differentiation
28
title quality
Ipsos Equalities Index 2023 Full report
“A well-instrumented opinion-research data book with a strong 20-page narrative front and a 50-page reference back, but it is not a Storymakers exemplar — use pp.1–20 to teach answer-first openings and quotable callouts, and use the appendix as a cautionary example of topic-label titling.”
↓ Action titles are survey-question labels, not insights — the same question text is reused on 20+ appendix slides (pp.30–51)
28
title quality
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)
28
title quality
jpmc esg report 2021
“A polished ESG disclosure report, not a story-driven deck — useful as a reference for quantified callouts and pillar dividers, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with topics, never states a thesis, and ends in appendix.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — most slides in the first 25 use topic-label headlines with no verb or claim (p.5, p.6, p.7, p.14, p.20, p.21, etc.)
25
title quality
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
25
title quality
EY Academic Resource Center – mission
“A curriculum catalog masquerading as a deck — the Helix worked example and Tufte build are useful teaching artifacts, but the overall structure is a topic dump with no thesis, repeated titles, and a diluted close, so it is a counter-example of Storymakers discipline rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides titled 'Analytics mindset competency framework' or 'Master case study guide' with no differentiating action titles — the reader cannot navigate by page header
25
title quality
e03d5b95 7f97 45dd 967f 891c3bf12198
“A weekly Goldman market-reference pamphlet dressed as a deck — useful as a data artifact but a poor Storymakers exemplar: it opens a thesis, drops it, and ends in disclaimers.”
↓ Opening thesis on passive ownership is dropped after p.5 and never resolved — the deck forgets its own question
24
title quality
Namibia National Budget 2024-25
“Topic-labeled government budget walkthrough with no SCQA arc and a non-existent close — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and answer-first structure fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title-as-topic on every slide — there is not a single declarative action title in 25 pages
24
title quality
2022 Environmental, Social, Governance Report
“A disciplined but title-flat ESG compliance report with clean pillar architecture and real metrics buried in callouts; useful as a teaching example of MECE section dividers, but a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, and closing call-to-action.”
↓ Zero action titles in 48 narrative pages — every headline is a noun phrase ('TALENT DEVELOPMENT', 'PAY PRACTICES & PAY EQUITY', 'HUMAN RIGHTS') so a reader skimming titles learns the agenda but no insights
24
title quality
rapporto di sostenibilita ey italia eng
“A competent corporate sustainability report with a genuinely MECE three-pillar spine and strong KPI callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar — topic-label titles, six slides titled '2022', and an appendix-fade ending mean it should be used as a counter-example for title rewriting and answer-first openings, not as a structural model.”
↓ Six different slides titled simply '2022' (pp.31, 41, 55, 57, 66, 77) — a critical title-quality failure that hides the insight on each page
22
title quality
2023 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, GOVERNANCE REPORT
“A conventional ESG disclosure document organized as a topic encyclopedia with strong evidentiary detail but topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for what action titles and a Resolution act should fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — the reader must read body text to learn what each page concludes