Raw

## Audit — "Period Graph Books"

**Reader's question:** management asked for corrective proposals, so the question is *"What should we do to stop the errors in the graph books?"* The answer must therefore consist of **actions** — the changes to be made, who makes them, what it costs. The memo supplies a process description and a diagnosis of causes instead, and never reaches an action.

**Legend:** `▲` top/answer · `●` first-level group · `○` support · `⚠` violation · `↑` conclusion buried too low · `⇄` wrong order type · `⊗` overlap · `⊕` gap · `✂` cut or move to appendix

---

### Annotated text

```text
Subject: Period Graph Books
⚠ topic label, not an answer. Nothing in this document states what to do.

Since Period 5, Financial Analysis has been responsible for producing four
graph-presentation books previously handled by Corporate Planning.       ← Situation, sound
This memo describes issues that appeared after the transfer.
✂ statement of purpose: names the topic, answers nothing, and is not a Complication.
⊕ the Complication (errors are reaching senior management; management asked
  for proposals) is never stated, so the Question never becomes live.

● Production
⚠ ⇄ first-level group of the wrong kind. The reader asked what to change; this
  group describes the current state in time order. Belongs below, as support
  under the change it justifies — or in an appendix.
   ○ 1. Gather data from divisional forms, internal documents, telephone calls.
   ○ 2. Calculate graph points manually or on the corporate computer…
   ○ 3. Transcribe the points to input sheets… Color Graphics re-enters…
   ○ 4. Check the data and calculations.
   ⊗ checking is not a fourth stage in sequence; it runs across stages 1–3.
     The list mixes a sequence with an activity that spans it.

● Issues
⚠ mixed kinds within one group: causes ("another person inserted into a
  fragmented process", "same information entered three times") sit beside
  symptoms ("inconsistent data", "incorrect variable-cost calculations").
   ○ The transfer inserted another person into an already fragmented process.  ← cause
   ○ Divisional staff and three corporate departments participate…             ← cause
   ○ For one book, divisional data are loaded… entered again, and returned.     ✂ ⊗
     one book's walkthrough re-tells stage 1–3 of "Production" at more detail;
     it is an illustration of the cause, not a separate issue.
   ○ inconsistent data between periods and regions, incorrect variable-cost
     calculations, unexplained changes to correct points, prior-period
     re-entry.                                                                 ← symptoms
   ⊕ no evidence of scale: how often, how many books, what it costs in
     rework or in credibility with senior management.

● Overall assessment
   ○ Most problems arise from a cumbersome fragmented process.
   ↑ this is the conclusion the whole memo supports. It sits in the last
     paragraph; it belongs at the top — but as the *ground* for the answer,
     not as the answer.
   ○ No one controls the data end to end, responsibility is unclear, errors
     fall between stages.
   ○ The production process badly needs streamlining, both for each book and
     for common calculations.
   ⚠ "needs streamlining" names a direction, not an action: no owner, no
     specific change, no sequence, no date.
   ○ The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing
     production.
   ↑ ⊕ this is the memo's real ask — additional resource — and it appears as
     an aside in the closing paragraph, unquantified and unrequested.

Could we discuss how best to proceed?
⚠ the request is handed back to the reader. Management asked for proposals and
  receives an invitation to a meeting.
```

---

### Findings

| # | Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whole document | **No answer exists anywhere.** The reader asked what to change; the document delivers a description and a diagnosis. Even the closing paragraph stops at "needs streamlining" | Derive the actions from the causes already established and put them on the first level: single end-to-end ownership of the data, one entry of each figure, one shared calculation base for the common points |
| 2 | Subject line / opening | Top is a topic label, and the controlling idea ("most problems arise from a fragmented process") sits in the final paragraph | Promote the answer to the subject line and first sentence; the fragmentation finding becomes its support |
| 3 | "Production" as a first-level group | Wrong kind: current-state mechanics standing where the reader's question demands changes | Demote under the change each step justifies, or move the whole walkthrough to an appendix |
| 4 | "Issues" | Mixed kinds — causes and symptoms in one group with no intermediate conclusion linking them | Separate: symptoms are evidence, the cause is the intermediate conclusion, the action is what follows from it |
| 5 | "For one book…" paragraph | Overlap: re-tells the Production steps at finer grain as though it were a distinct issue | Merge into the fragmentation support, or cut |
| 6 | Closing paragraph, last sentence | Buried ask: the resource request appears as an aside, unquantified | Raise to a first-level element, with the specific resource and the period it is needed for |
| 7 | Opening paragraph | Intro has a Situation but no Complication and no Question; "this memo describes issues" is a purpose statement | Replace with the complication — errors are reaching senior management — so the question the memo answers is visible before the support begins |

Two further findings are omitted: the missing scale evidence under every symptom (`⊕`), and the unexplained order of the four Issues.

---

### Score — 4/10 · *baseline workable*

| Axis | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Top | 0 | No answer present at any level; closest is a direction, not a decision |
| Same-kind groups | 1 | "Production" is internally uniform; "Issues" and "Overall assessment" mix causes, symptoms and asks |
| Order | 1 | Time order inside "Production" is formally correct but serves a group that should not be at that level; "Issues" has no explicable order |
| MECE | 1 | Checking overlaps the stages it follows; the one-book walkthrough duplicates the process description; no coverage of scale or cost |
| Display | 1 | Headings and numbering exist, but they label topics, so the skeleton does not show the argument |

---

### The three fixes that buy the most

1. **State the actions.** Replace "the process badly needs streamlining" with the two or three specific changes the memo's own evidence supports, each with an owner and a date.
2. **Lift the fragmentation conclusion to the top and put the process description beneath it** — the reader should meet the finding first and the mechanics only as proof.
3. **Make the resource request explicit and first-level**, in place of "could we discuss how best to proceed".

Say the word and I will rewrite it answer-first.