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
137 matching · page 6 / 6
32
title quality
Ipsos Populism Survey 2024
“A competent survey-results report with a strong early statistic and a clean composite index, but as a Storymakers exemplar it is a cautionary tale — topic-taxonomy spine, question-as-title convention, and no resolution act; use the callout discipline and the p22 index construction as teaching moments, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation, implication, or 'so what' act — the deck ends on p48 spending data, then methodology, then a brand tagline (p52 'BE SURE. ACT SMARTER.')
30
title quality
2021 P&C Underwriting Survey
“A rigorous but inert survey-findings readout — useful as a teaching example of consistent callouts and segmentation discipline, but a Storymakers anti-example for its noun-titles, missing recommendation act, and taxonomy-over-argument structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' act — deck ends on open-end verbatims (p.57-58) with zero call to action
30
title quality
IPSOS POPULISM SURVEY
“A competent research-data report with a strong opening hook but no recommendation arc — useful as a teaching example for callout discipline and section structure, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because the titles are questionnaire text and the deck ends in branding rather than a 'so what'.”
↓ Titles are survey-question text, not action titles — slides 24-31 read like a questionnaire transcript, not an argument
28
title quality
Namibia Budget on plate 2019-20
“A topic-organised PwC budget walkthrough with strong data and decent callouts but no thesis, no MECE pillars, and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example for action titles and closes, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No lead-with-the-answer slide in positions 1-3; the deck never tells you what PwC concludes about the 2019/2020 budget
28
title quality
Halifax 2024 FINAL 3
“A rigorous IPSOS public-opinion data report with MECE bones but no story arc — useful as a cautionary example of how topic-label titles and a missing resolution act reduce even strong research to a reference document, not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Titles are ~80% topic labels with colon-suffix pattern (p.22–31 all read 'Confidence in Government Response: X'; p.44–62 all read 'World Influencers: X') — the reader has to decode every chart
25
title quality
TrendRadar: The Future Consumer
“A competently scaffolded trend-catalog marketing deck with a strong framework but weak action titles and no recommendation — useful as a counter-example of how topic labels and a sales-CTA close undermine otherwise sound structure.”
↓ Section titles are reused verbatim across 3-5 slides (e.g., «Data Era & AI» on p.22-26, «Consumerism 2.0» on p.9-13) — no per-slide insight takeaway
25
title quality
Attitudes towards a global plastic pollution treaty
“A clean, disciplined survey-data report that functions as a reference table — not a Storymakers exemplar; use it to teach what consistent callout discipline looks like, but flag it as the canonical example of question-titled, recommendation-less data dumping.”
↓ Titles are survey questions, not insights — the reader has to read the chart to learn the answer (e.g. p.20 'Ban chemicals used in plastic that are hazardous…?')
25
title quality
What Worries the World
“A competent recurring data tracker with strong callouts but topic-label titles and no resolution act — useful as a counter-example of how even good underlying insights get neutered by non-action titles, not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Twelve consecutive slides titled 'Current Economic Situation' (p.35–46) — zero differentiation, reader cannot navigate or remember anything
25
title quality
IPSOS GLOBAL TRUSTWORTHINESS MONITOR January 2023
“A 186-page Ipsos data book mislabeled as a deck — useful as a reference appendix and as a teaching example of how topic-label titles destroy narrative, but not a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ ~170 of 186 slides are one-chart-per-page with topic-label titles (e.g. p.45 'Financial services - It is good at what it does') — no synthesis, no 'so what'
25
title quality
2022 esg report
“A competent but structurally conservative ESG reporting document - strong as an index-backed compliance artefact and acceptable as a pillar-architecture example, but a poor Storymakers exemplar because titles are topic labels, there is no closing argument, and the deck reports rather than persuades.”
↓ Titles are topic dumps rather than insights - 'MATERIALITY' (p.10), 'TALENT DEVELOPMENT' (p.18), 'CLIMATE CHANGE' (p.37), 'DATA PRIVACY' (p.40) surface no finding even when the callout already contains one
25
title quality
Essity Barclays Consumer Staples Conference 2017 tcm339 48081
“A standard investor-conference company overview with a predictable spine but topic-label titles and no narrative tension — use it to teach what to avoid (noun-phrase titles, buried thesis, redundant 'Summary' pages), not as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Opening five slides establish no stakes or thesis — the point is buried until p.9-10
22
title quality
POPULISM IN 2024
“A rigorous data report dressed as a deck — strong sample and a useful proprietary index, but it reads as a crosstab parade with no recommendation, so it's a counter-example for Storymakers titling and closing rather than an exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what' slide — deck ends at p47 on a spending crosstab and then drifts into methodology and corporate boilerplate (p48-51)
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
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
Banking and capital markets trends 2020: Laying the foundations for growth
“A reference catalog masquerading as a deck — useful as a topic checklist for an internal audit team but a poor Storymakers exemplar; cite it only as a counter-example of how topic-labels and pagination suffixes erase narrative.”
↓ Titles are topic labels, not action titles — 88 slides and not one declarative finding in the title bar
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.
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