Raw

**Legend**

| Marker | Meaning |
|---|---|
| `▲` | top / answer |
| `●` | first-level group |
| `○` | supporting detail |
| `⚠` | violation (mixed kinds, unexplainable order, false grouping) |
| `↑` | conclusion buried lower than it belongs — promote it |
| `⇄` | wrong order type here |
| `⊗` | overlap (ME broken) |
| `⊕` | gap (CE broken) |
| `✂` | cut, or move to an appendix |

***

Subject: Period Graph Books

⚠ [Topic label; no answer to reader's question about corrective proposals] 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.

Production

● [Process steps; descriptive, not analytical] 1. Gather data from divisional forms, internal documents, and telephone calls.
2. Calculate graph points manually or on the corporate computer, including rolling values for revenue, cost, and percentages.
3. Transcribe the points to input sheets. Analysts update the current period, then Color Graphics re-enters the points into its own database and generates the graphs.
4. Check the data and calculations.

Issues

⚠ [Mixed kinds: systemic observation, specific example, list of errors] 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.

⊕ [Gap: Systemic cause "no one controls data" introduced later without support here] For one book, divisional data are loaded into a dedicated corporate program, calculated, transferred to Color Graphics input sheets, entered again, and returned for updates. 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

↑ [Recommendation buried below description] 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, both for each book and for common calculations. The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing production.

Could we discuss how best to proceed?

***

### Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Opening paragraph | Top is a topic label; does not answer the reader's question for corrective proposals. | Replace with a one-sentence recommendation answering the question. |
| Body structure | Groups are mixed kinds (steps, problems, assessment); order is descriptive recall. | Restructure into 3–4 same-kind groups (reasons or actions) ordered by ranking or deduction. |
| Last paragraph | Recommendation buried; ask is vague ("discuss"). | Promote recommendation to top; close with a specific decision or sign-off request. |
| Issues / Assessment link | Gap: "Responsibility is unclear" stated in assessment but not evidenced in Issues. | Add evidence linking errors to lack of ownership/control. |
| Intro | Missing SCQ story; jumps straight to description. | Draft Situation → Complication → Question → Answer intro dosed to management. |

### Score

| Axis | Score |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 |
| Same-kind groups | 0 |
| Order | 0 |
| MECE | 1 |
| Display | 1 |
| **Total** | **2** |

**Band:** `0–3` not structured yet

### Three fixes that buy the most

1. Rewrite the opening to state the recommendation immediately (e.g., "We recommend streamlining the graph book process to eliminate errors and clarify ownership.").
2. Reorganize content into three groups of reasons or actions supporting the recommendation, moving the descriptive "Production" steps to an appendix.
3. Close with a clear decision request rather than a vague invitation to discuss.