Raw

**Legend:** `▲` top/answer · `●` first-level group · `○` supporting detail · `⚠` violation · `↑` buried conclusion · `⇄` wrong order · `⊗` overlap · `⊕` gap · `✂` cut/move

---

## Annotated text

> ⚠ **Subject: Period Graph Books** — topic label, not an answer. Management asked for corrective proposals; the subject (and the memo) delivers none.
>
> ○ 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. ✂ [statement of purpose — the Situation is one clause; the second sentence names the topic and answers nothing]
>
> **Production** ●
>
> 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: process narrative, symptom list, and causal claim in one group]
>
> ⊗ 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. [overlaps "Production" step 3 — the triple entry is described twice]
>
> ○ 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. ⊕ [the other three books are never described — "for each book" cannot be assessed]
>
> ⇄ 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. [recall order; no ranking by severity or grouping by stage]
>
> **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, both for each book and for common calculations. ↑ The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing production. [the actual answer — cause, direction, resourcing claim — is buried at the very end, and the resourcing premise is asserted, never supported]
>
> ⊕ Could we discuss how best to proceed? [the requested corrective proposal is missing entirely — no options, no recommendation, no owner, no timeline]

---

## Findings (most severe first)

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Whole memo / subject line | Top does not answer: management asked *what to do*, the memo proposes nothing — no answer exists anywhere | Lead with one sentence naming the recommended corrective action |
| "Overall assessment" | Conclusion buried at the end (`↑`): cause, direction ("streamline"), and resourcing claim are the pyramid's top, not its tail | Promote to the opening; the body then supports it |
| "Issues" | Mixed kinds (`⚠`): process description + symptom list + cause claim in one group | Split into same-kind groups: symptoms (what goes wrong) vs causes (why) |
| Symptom list ("Problems include…") | No explicable order (`⇄`) | Rank by severity/cost, or order by the production stage each belongs to |
| "Production" vs "Issues" | Overlap (`⊗`): triple data entry described in both | Describe the process once; reference it from the causes |
| "For one book…" | Gap (`⊕`): three of the four books never examined; common calculations asserted, not shown | Cover all four books or state explicitly what was excluded |
| Closing line | Missing intermediate conclusion: jumps from "problems exist" to "let's discuss" with the recommendation absent | Insert the proposal the facts support: what to change, who, by when |

## Score

| Axis | 0–2 |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 — no answer to the reader's question exists |
| Same-kind groups | 1 — "Production" is uniform, "Issues" is mixed |
| Order | 1 — steps time-ordered; symptoms unordered |
| MECE | 0 — clear overlap (triple entry twice) and clear gap (three books, the proposal) |
| Display | 1 — headings exist but the skeleton hides the argument |

**Total: 3/10 — not structured yet.**

## Three fixes that buy the most

1. Answer first: open with the recommendation (streamline the process, consolidate data entry under one owner) — management asked for proposals, not a status report.
2. Promote "Overall assessment" into the key line and organize the body beneath it as causes → symptoms → required changes, one kind per group.
3. Close the gaps: cover all four books (or say why not), and support or drop the claim that the current team cannot absorb the changes.