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 30 / 31
25
title quality
Road to Resilience The 2024 Annual Turnaround Survey 0
“A competent survey-results report with strong statistics but weak storycraft — useful as a teaching example of how topic-label titles and a missing thesis flatten otherwise solid analysis, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening never states a thesis: p.1–5 is cover/TOC/'Introduction'/'Key Insights'/'Economic Outlook' — five slides to reach the first real data point
25
title quality
mi gtia
“A well-organized JPMorgan reference guide with parallel country structure and solid data, but a textbook example of an analytical-dump deck with topic-label titles and no SCQA arc — useful as a counter-example for Storymakers training, not as an exemplar.”
↓ No thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the deck never tells the audience what to believe or do about Asia
25
title quality
mi gtm latam br en
“A reference-grade market almanac with strong data hygiene but no narrative — useful as a teaching example of MECE regional coverage and callout discipline, not of Storymakers structure or action-titling.”
↓ Zero action titles — every page title is a topic label ('Latin America: Politics' p.6, 'U.S.: The Fed and interest rates' p.34) leaving the audience to extract the insight themselves
24
title quality
CO2 Emissions Report
“A solid analytical benchmark report with a strong opening thesis and quantified stakes, undermined by a near-total absence of slide-level action titles and a flat 'Get in touch' close — useful as a teaching example of section-divider discipline and OEM-benchmark structure, but a cautionary case for title craft.”
↓ Title repetition: ~75% of slides recycle the report tagline as the action title, forcing insight into callouts and breaking the Storymakers principle of 'read the titles, get the story'
24
title quality
Namibia National Budget 2024-25
“Topic-labeled government budget walkthrough with no SCQA arc and a non-existent close — useful as a counter-example of what action titles and answer-first structure fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title-as-topic on every slide — there is not a single declarative action title in 25 pages
24
title quality
rapporto di sostenibilita ey italia eng
“A competent corporate sustainability report with a genuinely MECE three-pillar spine and strong KPI callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar — topic-label titles, six slides titled '2022', and an appendix-fade ending mean it should be used as a counter-example for title rewriting and answer-first openings, not as a structural model.”
↓ Six different slides titled simply '2022' (pp.31, 41, 55, 57, 66, 77) — a critical title-quality failure that hides the insight on each page
22
title quality
Dissecting 2023-24 Budget Speech
“A topic-organised budget summary that is informationally competent but narratively inert — useful as a counter-example for action-title training, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No thesis or 'so-what' anywhere in the first 4 slides — the deck never tells the reader what to conclude about the 2023/24 budget
22
title quality
IPSOS HEALTH SERVICE REPORT 2024
“A competent global-survey data release with MECE pillars and strong headline numbers, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary case — topic-label titles and a missing resolution act make it a reference for analytical structure, not narrative.”
↓ Action titles are essentially absent — pp.7, 20–22, 24, 30–40, 42–47 use the verbatim survey question as the title, forcing the reader to do all interpretive work
22
title quality
THE IPSOS AI MONITOR 2024
“A competent survey-data report with a strong opening stat but topic-label titles and a missing resolution act — useful as a counter-example of how raw survey questions kill action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ 30+ slides use the literal survey question as the title (p.11-16, 20-23, 28-40), forcing the reader to derive every insight
22
title quality
2023 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, GOVERNANCE REPORT
“A conventional ESG disclosure document organized as a topic encyclopedia with strong evidentiary detail but topic-label titles and no narrative arc — useful as a counter-example for what action titles and a Resolution act should fix, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not insights — the reader must read body text to learn what each page concludes
22
title quality
Ipsos Global Advisor Predictions 2024 Full Report web 0
“A clean, navigable annual survey readout that respects MECE structure but reads as a data dump — useful as a reference document, weak as a Storymakers exemplar because titles describe questions rather than answers and the deck never lands a recommendation.”
↓ Titles are survey items, not findings — e.g. p.27 and p.35 still carry the literal stem 'Q. For each of the following, please tell me how likely or unlikely you think they are to happen...?'
22
title quality
Ipsos Health Service Report 2024 Global Charts
“A market-research findings report dressed as a deck — strong opening stat and clean three-pillar tour, but it uses survey questions as titles, never resolves into a recommendation, and is therefore a Storymakers anti-example for titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ Survey questions used as slide titles ~15 times (p.7, 20-28, 30-40, 42-47) — the action title is doing none of the storytelling work, callouts have to carry it
22
title quality
ipsos global trustworthiness monitor 2022 charts
“A meticulously consistent research tabulation, not a Storymakers deck — useful as a counter-example of how survey-question titles and an analysis-only arc bury a strong opening insight under 170 pages of undifferentiated charts.”
↓ ~180 of 186 titles are topic labels (e.g. p.45 'Financial services - It is good at what it does'), not declarative findings
22
title quality
International Women's Day 2023 full report
“A clean, well-segmented IPSOS research report that leads with findings but ends without a recommendation — useful as a teaching example of disciplined section architecture and well-written callouts, but a cautionary example of titles-as-survey-questions and missing 'so what' resolution.”
↓ Action titles are survey questions, not insights — p.16, p.17, p.18, p.19, p.20 all share the title 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?'
22
title quality
Dissecting the 2021/22 Annual Budget Speech
“A reference-style budget recap with comprehensive data but no story, no point of view, and topic-label titles — useful as a counter-example of analytical dumping, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Repetitive boilerplate titles: 17 of 19 slides start with '2022/23 Annual Budget Speech:' — zero declarative action titles
22
title quality
mi guide to alternatives
“A best-in-class market reference compendium that is structurally the opposite of a Storymakers deck — use it to teach chart density and MECE asset-class coverage, but cite it as a counter-example for action titles, SCQA openings, and closing recommendations.”
↓ No SCQA opening — slides 1–5 are cover/team/TOC/two charts, with no thesis or stakes established
20
title quality
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS INDEX 2023
“A well-templated annual reference report from a research firm - useful as a navigable data catalogue but a poor Storymakers exemplar: use it only as a counter-example of topic-label titles and missing SCQA arc.”
↓ Zero action titles in 35 slides - every per-profession page (pp.15-32) is templated as 'Trust in X by country', burying the finding
20
title quality
THE WORLD’S RESPONSE TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE
“A competent survey-results dossier with a useful early summary and strong callouts, but it fails as a Storymakers exemplar because every page is titled as a topic and there is no recommendation to land — use the callouts as a teaching example of insight sentences, not the deck structure.”
↓ Titles are uniformly topic labels, not insights — p.6 'COUNTRIES WITH STRONGEST OPINIONS' and p.11 'COUNTRIES WITH STRONGEST OPINIONS ON THEIR OWN RESPONSE' describe the chart, not the finding
20
title quality
Ipsos global trustworthiness index 2023
“A well-structured data reference report but a weak Storymakers exemplar — use pp.4/10/14 as an example of clean sectioning, but not as a model for narrative, titling, or close.”
↓ No thesis slide — pp.1-4 are cover/TOC/intro/divider with zero insight asserted before data begins on p.5
20
title quality
Global Report What Worries the World May 23 WEB
“A competent recurring tracker report with strong evidence in the callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution act — useful as a teaching example of what NOT to do at the title and closing layers, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are nouns, not insights — the action sits in the callout (p.9, p.13–19, p.22–28)
18
title quality
Ipsos Issues Index January 2025
“A competent recurring data tracker, but a weak Storymakers exemplar — use it only as a counter-example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act drain narrative power from solid underlying data.”
↓ No executive summary or headline-finding slide — p.1–p.4 are all framing/cover material, so the reader hits raw issue trends with no thesis to test against.
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 World Refugee Day 2024 Global Report PUBLIC 0
“A competent global survey report with strong synthesis sentences but topic-label titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for why action titles matter, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — p.11, p.12, p.17, p.18, p.30–34 all use 'Q. ...' verbatim where an action title belongs