Raw

**Legend:** ▲ top/answer · ● first-level group · ○ support · ⚠ mixed kinds/false grouping · ↑ buried conclusion · ⇄ wrong order · ⊗ overlap · ⊕ gap · ✂ cut/appendix

---

Subject: Period Graph Books

Since Period 5, Financial Analysis has been responsible for producing four graph-presentation books previously handled by Corporate Planning. This memo describes issues that appeared after the transfer. [Situation given; Complication only implied — no line states what specifically changed for the worse, or how badly, before the Question is asked]

**Production** [⚠ topic label, not a claim; this section answers "how does the process work," not the reader's question]
1. Gather data from divisional forms, internal documents, and telephone calls.
2. Calculate graph points manually or on the corporate computer…
3. Transcribe the points to input sheets…
4. Check the data and calculations.
[○ time-ordered, internally consistent — but sits at the top level with no payoff for the reader]

**Issues** [⚠ mixed kinds: general causes of fragmentation + one book's specific symptoms, presented as if same kind]

The transfer inserted another person into an already fragmented process. Divisional staff and three corporate departments participate, and the same information may be entered into computer systems three times. [○ general cause]

For one book, divisional data are loaded into a dedicated corporate program… [⊗ this is evidence for the general cause above, not a separate category — currently reads as a sibling, not a support]. Problems include inconsistent data between periods and regions, incorrect variable-cost calculations, unexplained changes to points that were previously correct, and prior-period data that must be re-entered.

**Overall assessment**

Most problems arise from a cumbersome fragmented process. No one controls the data from beginning to end, responsibility is unclear, and errors can fall between stages. The production process badly needs streamlining… [↑ this is the real answer to "what's wrong," buried three sections down instead of leading]. The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing production. [○ this is actually the seed of a real second branch — a staffing/resourcing constraint — currently demoted to a passing remark]

Could we discuss how best to proceed? [▲ this is where the top should be, and it isn't an answer — it's a request for a conversation. ⊕ management explicitly asked for corrective proposals; none are given anywhere in the memo]

---

## Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Closing line "Could we discuss…" | Top does not answer the reader's question — ends in a question instead of a recommendation | Open with the recommended corrective action as the first line |
| Whole memo | ⊕ Gap — management asked for "corrective proposals"; none exist in the document | Add a group of proposed actions (the kind the reader's question demands) |
| "Overall assessment" | ↑ Buried conclusion — the real diagnosis ("cumbersome fragmented process, no end-to-end owner") sits at the end, three sections after the reader meets the symptoms | Promote it to the top, before or replacing the current opening |
| "Issues" section | ⊗ False grouping — a general cause (fragmentation, triple entry) and one book's specific symptoms are presented as parallel, same-level items | Make the general causes the first-level group; move the one-book detail underneath as its supporting evidence |
| "Production" section | Section answers "how does the process work" (mechanics), not "why does it fail" or "what should we do" — no payoff for the reader | Cut to an appendix, or keep only the steps that directly support a named failure point |
| "current team cannot manage the required changes" | A real second branch (resourcing/capacity constraint) is present but demoted to a closing aside instead of standing as its own group | Promote to a first-level group alongside the process-fragmentation cause |
| Intro paragraph | Situation is stated but the Complication (what specifically broke, and how badly) is never made explicit before the memo reaches its "question" | State the complication in one line (e.g., specific recurring error types since the transfer) so the reader reaches the question already asking it |

## Score

| Axis | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Top | 0 | No answer anywhere; memo ends in a question, not a recommendation |
| Same-kind groups | 1 | Production is internally consistent (steps); Issues mixes cause and evidence |
| Order | 1 | Time order present in Production only; Issues and Overall assessment are unordered |
| MECE | 0 | Gap: no corrective proposals despite being requested; overlap: book-specific detail duplicates the general cause |
| Display | 1 | Headings exist, but no key line and the real conclusion is not where the eye lands |

**Total: 3/10 — not structured yet**

## Three fixes that buy the most

1. Replace the closing question with a stated recommendation as the top line — this alone would move the memo from "not structured" toward baseline.
2. Split "Issues" into causes (first level) with the one-book detail demoted to supporting evidence underneath.
3. Add the missing corrective-actions group — the memo currently has no answer to the question it was commissioned to answer.