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
635 matching · page 24 / 27
38
title quality
Innovation Engine for Growth Playbook
“A solid methodology playbook with a genuinely MECE four-pillar spine, undermined by a marketing-brochure opening, topic-label titles, and excessive divider padding — use the pillar architecture as a teaching example, not the narrative or title craft.”
↓ Slides 1–5 burn the entire opening on cover/filler/dividers/TOC; thesis doesn't appear until p.6 — fails the 'lead with the answer' test
38
title quality
PwC’s 2019 actuarial robotic process automation (RPA) survey report
“A competent survey-results report with strong quantified callouts but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of how good data can be undermined by a missing close and absent action titles.”
↓ Four consecutive slides (p.7-10) share the title 'Use of RPA within different functions in the insurer (continued)' — a textbook topic-dump anti-pattern with zero MECE signaling
38
title quality
Merging with SPAC
“A competent client-education primer on SPAC mechanics with a strong opening market block but no thesis and no close — use slides 4-10 and 34 as teaching examples of action titles, and use the rest as a cautionary case in how topic-dump structure and '(cont'd)' titles erode a Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Eleven slides reuse '(cont'd)' as their title (p.17-19, 21, 25, 27-29, 41, 47, 49, 51-53) — built for the speaker, not the reader, a Storymakers cardinal sin
38
title quality
Decoding Instant Payments Emerging Markets
“A competently structured PwC explainer with a clear MECE skeleton and a real thesis (Adoption Boosters), but topic-label titles, a geography-first case section that ignores its own framework, and a flat conclusion make it a useful teaching example of section architecture — not of action-title or closing craft.”
↓ Six slides reuse the cover title 'Decoding Instant Payments: The Emerging Markets' Story' as their slide title (pp.5, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27) — wasted real estate
38
title quality
PERILS OF PERCEPTION
“A solid Ipsos research publication mis-cast as a deck — strong topical data and two excellent insight titles at pp. 35-36, but it opens softly, organizes by survey question instead of MECE pillars, and ends in methodology with no recommendation, so use pp. 35-36 as a teaching example of action titles, not the document as a Storymakers structure.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck ends with Methodology (pp. 37-38) and a 'For more information' link (p. 39); there is no recommendation, implication, or next-steps slide
38
title quality
Our life with AI: The reality of today and the promise of tomorrow
“A well-evidenced public-opinion research report with elegant chapter framing but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a teaching example of strong evidence/callout pairing, not as a Storymakers narrative exemplar.”
↓ Action titles are poetic topic labels not insights — 'The promise of tomorrow.', 'Around the corner.', 'A generation away.' force the reader to decode each chart
38
title quality
REINVENTION WITH GENERATIVE AI: CalPERS
“A capabilities-and-education primer dressed as a client deck — useful as a teaching example of clean case-study slides (p.17–20) but a cautionary tale on story arc, since the client and the recommendation are both buried until the last two pages.”
↓ CalPERS — the named client — does not appear in the narrative until p.24, turning a client deck into a generic GenAI capabilities primer
38
title quality
PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018 The values effect
“Editorial-style survey report with strong case-study scaffolding but topic-label titles and a soft close — use the section-divider callouts and case-study cadence as teaching examples, not the title craft or the resolution.”
↓ Action-title hygiene is poor — 8+ slides reuse the literal report name 'PwC Global Family Business Survey 2018' as the title (e.g. p.3, p.14, p.16, p.17, p.19, p.29, p.31, p.35, p.36, p.37, p.45), forfeiting the slide's most valuable real estate
38
title quality
Navigating uncertainty: PwC’s annual global Working Capital Study
“A competently structured PwC thought-leadership report with strong quantified stakes and clean section architecture, but topic-label titles and a soft service-pitch close keep it firmly in the 'analytical report' lane rather than the Storymakers exemplar tier.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic nouns or 'Figure X:' captions — the deck reads like a report TOC, not a story
38
title quality
The future of work: A journey to 2022
“A conceptually strong scenario report with a memorable MECE spine, but it reads as a thought-leadership essay rather than a Storymakers deck - use the Blue/Green/Orange framework as a teaching example of MECE pillars, not as a model for action titles or recommendation closes.”
↓ Title repetition and topic-label titles dominate (p.5, p.6, p.8, p.10, p.19 all variants of the same generic phrase) - readers can't skim the deck and reconstruct the argument
38
title quality
inv research 20220928 crypto asset survey EN
“A competent topic-organized survey report with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution — use the p.5-8 Key Findings pattern as a teaching example of leading with the answer, but not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — p.12 'Crypto Ownership' instead of '13% of Canadians own crypto, skewing young, male and investor-leaning'
38
title quality
wai ipsos innovation misperception epidemic
“A thesis-forward research note that lands its hook in the first two slides but then devolves into a data tour with no recommendation — use p.1-2 as a teaching example of strong openings, not the overall structure.”
↓ No resolution act — deck ends at p.13 demographics/usage table and then two 'About' bios (p.14-15) with zero recommendations
38
title quality
ey iif bank risk management survey
“A well-structured survey reference report with strong callouts but weak Storymakers discipline — use its front-loaded exec summary as a teaching example, but its raw 'Figure N: <question>' titles and absent recommendation are exactly what the methodology argues against.”
↓ Body-slide titles are mostly raw survey questions prefixed 'Figure N:' (pp.8,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,26,27,29,32,33) — the single biggest Storymakers failure in the deck
38
title quality
MSDL 4Q23 Earnings Presentation
“A competent investor earnings deck whose callouts do the storytelling its titles refuse to — useful as a teaching example of how action callouts can rescue topic-titled slides, but not a Storymakers exemplar at the deck level.”
↓ Two disclaimer pages (p.2-3) before any thesis — opening real estate is wasted
35
title quality
IBV Global Business Services Cover
“A concept-led IBM thought-leadership piece with a clear thesis but weak editorial discipline on titles and no sharp call to action — useful as a teaching example of framework reveal (p.8, p.10), not of Storymakers action-titling or closing craft.”
↓ The phrase 'The Individual Enterprise' is reused as a title on p.1, p.4, p.6, p.8, and p.18 — the deck leans on the brand phrase instead of differentiating each slide's insight
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
Risk Management as a catalyst for growth
“An awards-ceremony deck dressed as a thought-leadership piece — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and sponsor-driven sectioning suppress an otherwise defensible argument; not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis in the opening — the cover promises 'Risk Management as a catalyst for growth' but slides 1-9 deliver only logistics and a textbook definition; the 'catalyst' claim is never substantiated
35
title quality
2020 Deloitte Human Capital Trends: Government & Public Services Insights
“A disciplined three-pillar framework deck marketing a Deloitte+Oracle HCM service — structurally MECE but narratively flat; useful as a teaching example of parallel section architecture, not of action-title writing or resolution.”
↓ Action titles are almost entirely topic labels ('Purpose', 'HR imperatives', 'Oracle Cloud HCM Enabling Capabilities' reused verbatim on p.10, p.15, p.20) — a reader skimming titles cannot reconstruct the argument
35
title quality
ipsos predictions 2025 survey report
“A topically MECE survey read-out with a strong unease setup and three excellent analytical 2x2s, but the action titles are mostly survey prompts and the deck ends in methodology — use slides 28/69/71 as title-quality exemplars, not the deck as a Storymakers structural model.”
↓ Closing is an appendix dump (Methodology p.75-76, 'For more information' p.77) with zero synthesis, recommendation, or call back to the opening unease theme
35
title quality
ey global ipo trends 2023 q2 v1
“A competently structured EY educational primer with a 5W1H spine and a service pitch tail — useful as a teaching example of MECE topic coverage, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because it leads with questions instead of answers and closes on credentials instead of a recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are nouns or questions throughout (pp.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) — the deck never tells you the answer in the title bar
34
title quality
Sustainability Corporate Citizenship
“A compliance-grade ESG disclosure with a decent MECE pillar skeleton but no SCQA, no action titles, and no resolution — usable as a teaching example of pillar structure, not of Storymakers narrative.”
↓ Front-matter bloat: 3 of the first 5 slides (cover, forward-looking disclaimer, ToC) before any substance, and 'Overview' (p.4) carries no thesis
32
title quality
Capgemini Engineering Overview 2021
“A credentials brochure masquerading as a deck — useful as a counter-example of topic-title catalog structure, not as a Storymakers exemplar of narrative, pillars, or action titles.”
↓ Two consecutive slides (p.10 and p.11) share the identical title 'SELECTED SUCCESS STORIES' with no differentiating action title
32
title quality
Doing business in the Philippines 2021
“A well-researched Philippines investment-reference document dressed as a consulting deck — strong on data density and section navigation, but topic-ordered rather than argument-ordered, so use it as an example of what to avoid when teaching Storymakers action titles and closing acts.”
↓ No answer-first framing — the document never states a recommendation or decision it is trying to drive; the closest thing is the preface platitude on p.3
32
title quality
The Shopping Centre Handbook 4.0
“A competent Spanish retail-real-estate market handbook whose analytical middle is usable as a teaching example for KPI-page cadence, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is weak: topic-label titles, no call to action, and an S→A→A structure that ends on observation rather than resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide anywhere — the 'What is Next?' section (pp 26-30) ends on description, then the deck closes with a team bio (p 31)