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
726 matching · page 26 / 31
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
unlocking growth creating tech ecosystems
“A well-researched, MECE-disciplined regional ecosystems report whose analytical chapters are teachable but whose titles, opening thesis, and sponsor-led close make it a weak Storymakers exemplar — use the parallel Edinburgh/Manchester build, not the narrative frame.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights: 'Executive summary' (p.4), 'Key recommendations' (p.5), 'Edinburgh: Tech investors' (p.18) — the reader cannot skim the action titles and get the argument.
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
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
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
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
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
Earth Day 2024 Global Report
“A research-survey report with a strong executive summary bolted onto an analytical data dump — useful as a teaching example for action-title openers (p.4–11) and section pillar naming, but not as a Storymakers structural exemplar.”
↓ ~75% of body slides title-recycle the survey question verbatim (p.13–37 especially), forcing the reader to derive insight from the chart rather than being handed it