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
737 matching · page 26 / 31
40
title quality
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.'
40
title quality
ipsos reputation council report 2024
“A competent thought-leadership compendium with strong problem framing and quantified pull-quotes, but its topic-label titles, four 'Conclusion' slides, and missing closing recommendation make it a teaching example of analytical depth without a Storymakers narrative spine.”
↓ Four slides titled simply 'Conclusion' (p10, p15, p20, p25) — wasted real estate that should carry the section's takeaway in the title
40
title quality
incident response insights january 2025
“A short analytical IR briefing with strong quantified callouts but no story arc — use the data slides as a content example, not the structure, since it lacks opening thesis, MECE pillars, and a recommendation close.”
↓ No thesis or SCQA setup in the first 3 slides — reader is dropped into p.2 KPIs with no stakes
40
title quality
wipoapiday2023 o neill
“A competent Gartner-style trends briefing with quantified data and a recognizable framework, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is an analytical dump that lacks thesis, recommendation, and close — useful for teaching action-title rewrites, not narrative architecture.”
↓ No thesis or recommendation — the deck never tells the audience what to do with the trend data (no 'recommendation' or 'next_steps' slide type appears).
40
title quality
350e000c acff 48f1 ab1e fc2abe7a5f3c
“A Goldman weekly strategy note with a strong thesis opening and a reference-book middle — useful as a teaching example for lead-with-the-answer openings, but not as a story arc.”
↓ 27 consecutive analyze_data slides (p.6–32) with no narrative thread back to the Mag-7 question
38
title quality
Infrastructure Barometer Italy
“A classically-structured EY barometer report with credible data and sharp callouts, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar: topic-label titles and a missing Resolution act turn a potentially confident point of view into a survey readout.”
↓ No recommendation or Resolution act — the deck ends at p.12 on a 'divided opinion' note followed by Contacts, violating the Storymakers answer-first principle
38
title quality
Parthenon Profit Warnings Q4
“A competent quarterly data bulletin with strong callout writing but weak storytelling — use the callouts as a teaching example of insight sentences, but not the overall structure, which dumps analysis and never resolves.”
↓ Three consecutive slides (10, 11, 12) share the identical title 'Sectors to watch' — no differentiation, no MECE split
38
title quality
Our Impact Plan 2022
“A competent ESG/CSR reporting document with parallel pillar architecture and strong quantified callouts, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a cautionary case — topic-label titles, no SCQA tension, and a closing that trails off into governance and contacts; teach the pillar structure and KPI openers, not the narrative.”
↓ No closing recommendation or next-steps synthesis — the deck ends on p.51 'Governance' (an establish_context slide) and p.52 'Contacts', wasting the last impression
38
title quality
Our Impact Plan 2024
“A solid ESG disclosure document with strong quantification and case-study discipline, but as a Storymakers exemplar it's a topic-taxonomy dump that buries insights behind noun titles and ends in an appendix — use the case-study craft and quantified callouts as teaching examples, not the structure or titling.”
↓ No closing act — last analytical content is Materiality methodology (pp.83–86), then 19 pages of appendix; deck ends on 'Contacts' (p.106) with no recommendation or call to commitment
38
title quality
IoT Big Data Value Creation
“An atmospheric thought-leadership deck that sets up a topic without ever delivering an answer — useful as a cautionary example of strong context with no Resolution act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or call-to-action slide — closes on 'challenges' (p.17) and a Clarke quote (p.18) instead of an answer
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
Turkish NPL Purchasing Market Overview and the way forward
“A rigorous, scenario-driven Turkish NPL market study with strong forecast craftsmanship but weak Storymakers hygiene — use p.18-30 as a teaching example for forecast architecture, not for narrative or action-title discipline.”
↓ The promised 'way forward' is missing — no recommendation, no implication-for-AMCs slide, and the deck ends in policy recap + abbreviations + contact rather than a close
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
IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT 2025
“A research report dressed as a deck -- exemplary executive-summary craft in p.5-9, but the body is an atlas of survey tables and the close evaporates into methodology, so use the opening as a teaching example and the body as a counter-example.”
↓ Body slides p.11-49 are repetitive topic-titled data tables ('...by Country' / '...by Generation') with no action titles surfacing the insight
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
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
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
inv research 20231129 crypto asset survey 2023
“A competently structured research-report deck with strong MECE pillars and answer-first summaries, but topic-label titles and a missing recommendation act make it useful as a teaching example of structure-without-argument rather than a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation / 'so what' act — deck ends in an appendix with demographics (p.72), leaving the reader without next steps or policy implications
35
title quality
Deloitte Global 2024 Gen Z and Millennial Survey Country profile: Netherlands
“A competent survey-data country report organised as a topic dump with noun-label titles and no arc or close — use it as a counter-example of what happens when action titles and resolution are missing, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No Situation→Complication→Answer→Resolution arc: p.2 jumps straight from methodology into a topic parade with no central tension or thesis
35
title quality
The future of M&A 2022 M&A Trends Survey
“A competent survey-report deck with quantified findings but weak Storymakers hygiene — reuse for teaching callout-writing and framework slides, not for action titles, pillar architecture, or closings.”
↓ Title reuse across 4-6 consecutive slides (e.g. 'Beyond the basics' p.13-18, 'What is your place on the playing field?' p.31-37) destroys slide-level action-title discipline
35
title quality
VC Human Capital Survey
“A competent longitudinal survey report with a real three-act spine and a genuine call-to-action block, but titles are topic labels and the resolution is dwarfed by the analytical middle — use pp.38-40 as a teaching example of an explicit recommendations coda, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title layer carries almost no insight — 'Gender diversity' repeated on pp.12-15, 'Racial diversity' repeated 7x on pp.16-22; the pull-quotes do the work the titles should