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 27 / 27
18
title quality
IPSOS GLOBAL ADVISOR Global Perceptions of Healthcare
“A competently executed survey-results report that mistakes a question-by-question data walk for a narrative — useful as a counter-example of how repeating the survey question as the slide title kills any Storymakers structure.”
↓ No SCQA arc: zero Complication or Resolution slides — the deck is 9 consecutive analyze_data pages with no synthesis
18
title quality
Ipsos Issues Index March 2025
“A disciplined tracker data report with strong callouts but zero Storymakers craft — useful as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing recommendation flatten genuinely interesting findings.”
↓ Cover/opening is dead weight: p.1, p.2, p.3 are all variants of the title with no thesis, no headline finding, and no chart of the month
18
title quality
Ipsos Issues Index Jan25
“A competent recurring data tracker, not a Storymakers artifact — use its callout discipline and parallel segmentation grid as small-scale teaching examples, but treat the overall structure (no thesis, topic-label titles, no recommendation) as a cautionary case of analytical dump dressed as a deck.”
↓ Titles p.2–3 are literally just 'January 2025' — two consecutive slides with a date as their header is a failure mode
18
title quality
ey future of work 20 10
“A capabilities brochure dressed as a point of view — useful as a counter-example of how repeated taglines and noun-phrase titles erase a deck's narrative, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Six slides (p.4, p.6, p.7, p.8, p.9 and the callouts on p.5, p.10, p.11) repeat the identical 'Operate in two gears…' string, collapsing differentiation between sections
18
title quality
Second Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard investor-relations earnings deck — competent as an IR document but a weak Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a negative example of topic-label titling and appendix-as-ending, not as a structural model.”
↓ No thesis slide anywhere — reader must assemble the quarter's story from raw tables (p.4–13)
18
title quality
guide to the markets au
“An exemplary reference data-book and a poor Storymakers exemplar — use it to teach taxonomic MECE structure and chart cadence, but use it as a counter-example for action titles, opening thesis, section dividers, and closing recommendation.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — 81/81 slides use topic labels ('Inflation', 'Gold', 'Volatility') so the deck cannot be read by titles alone, violating the core Storymakers test
15
title quality
HR Pulse Survey Presentation of results
“A competently organized survey reference document, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a negative example of how topic-ordered analytical dumps bury the insight and skip the recommendation act entirely.”
↓ Zero recommendations or 'so what' slides across 59 pages — the deck is 49 consecutive analyze_data slides with no resolution act
15
title quality
Scott Anthony Press Kit
“A functional press kit, not a Storymakers exemplar — useful only as a negative example of topic-label titles and a missing CTA close.”
↓ Three consecutive slides titled 'SPEAKING TOPICS' (pp. 3-5) — no differentiation, no progression, reads as a topic dump
15
title quality
Third Quarter 2024 Results
“A standard Gartner earnings/IR deck — competent as a reference document but a near-anti-pattern for Storymakers, useful only as a 'before' example to demonstrate why topic titles and appendix-heavy structures fail to tell a story.”
↓ Zero action titles across 27 pages — every header is a topic label, violating the most basic Storymakers principle
10
title quality
SAP Innovation Awards 2022 Entry Pitch Deck
“A template-driven awards submission with strong KPI evidence but no narrative spine — useful as a cautionary example of how rigid submission templates kill action titles and destroy the closing act, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Fourteen consecutive slides titled 'Additional Information' (p.15–p.30) — the deck abandons titling discipline entirely in its second half
5
title quality
gol 6
“This is a financial-product fact sheet with disclaimers, not a Storymakers consulting narrative — useful only as a counter-example of what happens when a document has no action titles, no arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are entirely absent — every page header is a product code or firm name (p1-11), so the deck has no insight scaffolding