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 27 / 31
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
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 IPO Watch 2021 A PwC Global IPO Centre publication
“A well-structured market-data report with MECE geographic coverage, but as a Storymakers exemplar it shows what NOT to do — topic-label titles, no Complication/Resolution arc, and a deck that ends in tables; use only the callout sentences as a teaching example of insight-bearing language.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 'Overview of IPO and FO activity in the Americas' (p.12-13) is repeated verbatim with no differentiation
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
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
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
34
title quality
Global Fashion & Luxury Private Equity and Investors Survey 2021
“A credibility-heavy Deloitte research report with strong evidence density and a front-loaded takeaways block, but structurally an analytical dump: topic-label titles, no resolution, and a close that reverts to respondent demographics — useful as a teaching example of 'how to carry a metric in every callout', not of Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Closing sequence p.52–56 is respondent profile, not recommendation — the deck ends on 'who answered the survey' rather than 'what investors should do'
34
title quality
The importance of being human in a digital world
“Research-report-style thought-leadership deck with a strong unifying metaphor and a genuine two-pillar MECE spine, but titles recycle section labels instead of carrying per-slide insights — useful as a teaching example of anchor-phrase discipline, not of action-title craft.”
↓ Action titles collapse into section labels — five consecutive slides (p.7, 9, 10, 11, 12) all titled '03 Key research findings' with no per-slide insight, forcing the reader to mine the body for the point
34
title quality
PwC’s MSME Survey 2020 Building to Last
“A topic-organised survey report dressed as a deck — strong on evidence, case studies and quoted statistics, but weak as a Storymakers exemplar because it never leads with an answer, lets question-style titles do the work that insight titles should, and ends on a technology tangent instead of a recommendation.”
↓ No answer-first opening — the thesis is buried until the 'Headline survey findings' on pp.11-12, and even those are not declarative single-sentence claims
34
title quality
2023 impact report
“Polished corporate ESG catalog with strong case studies and metrics but no story arc, no action titles, and no close — useful as a reference for pillar structure and evidence density, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No SCQA setup anywhere in the opening — pp.1-4 are brand mood, not situation/complication
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
CEOs ready to face up to crises
“A competent Deloitte survey report with declarative section dividers but topic-label slide titles and no resolution act — useful as a teaching example of how pillar dividers and data-rich callouts can carry a deck despite weak within-section titles and a missing recommendation close.”
↓ Slide titles are topic dumps, not action titles — p.7, 8, 9 are all titled 'Strategy'; p.25-28 all titled 'Financing'; the reader cannot skim for the argument
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)
32
title quality
Digital Transformation NJ
“A credentials-led government capabilities pitch with strong case-study evidence but no SCQA arc, no NJ thesis, and a «Thank you» ending — useful as a teaching example of why action titles and a closing recommendation matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No NJ-specific thesis or stakes anywhere in the first five slides — opens with Deloitte's credentials (p.2) instead of the client's situation
32
title quality
WORLD AFFAIRS 2023
“A 92-page Ipsos survey-data report dressed as a deck — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles, a missing exec summary, and a 19-slide country dump destroy narrative; do NOT use as a Storymakers exemplar except to teach what to avoid.”
↓ No executive summary, no thesis slide, no recommendations slide — 92 pages and zero synthesis
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
PREDICTIONS 2025 REPORT
“A competent annual-survey reference document that is well-structured topically but underbuilt as a Storymakers narrative — use the quadrant slides (28, 69, 71) and the early synthesis pages (6-7) as teaching exemplars, and use the rest of the deck as a counter-example of survey-question-as-title and missing-resolution.”
↓ ~40+ data slides (pp. 25-27, 34-46, 50-55, 59-64, 70-74) use the raw survey question as the title, leaving the audience to derive the 'so what'
32
title quality
Beyond thenoise: Orchestrating AI-driven customer excellence
“A thorough KPMG research whitepaper with a usable 7-step middle act, but as a Storymakers exemplar it fails on titling, opening hook, and closing — use the 7-step implementation spine as a teaching example for sequential build, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ Title 'Implementing AI' is reused on five separate slides (p.23, 25, 28, 32, 35) and 'Highlights from the 2024 CEE research' on three (p.5, 11, 12) — placeholder titling, not action titles
32
title quality
ipsos pride report 2025
“Syndicated research report with a strong 5-slide editorial summary bolted onto a 35-slide data appendix; use slides 5-9 as a Storymakers exemplar for translating data into narrative, but the overall structure is a topic dump, not a story.”
↓ Title duplication: 'LGBT Attitudes by Country' appears on at least 5 slides (11, 13, 15, 17, 23) with no insight extracted on the page itself
32
title quality
ipsos hisf world affairs report 2023 final
“A topic-indexed survey data dump with strong parallel structure but no thesis, no recommendation, and titles that are mostly category labels — use it as a counter-example of how to publish findings without a story, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No executive summary, key-findings page, or recommendation anywhere in 92 pages — the insight-per-slide ratio is close to zero for a reader skimming titles