Raw

**Legend**  
`▲` top / answer `●` first‑level group `○` supporting detail `⚠` violation (mixed kinds, missing top, no order, etc.) `↑` conclusion buried lower `⇄` wrong order type `⊗` overlap (ME broken) `⊕` gap (CE broken) `✂` cut / move to appendix  

---  

```text
⚠ 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.

⚠ 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
⚠ 
⚠ 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.
⚠ 
⚠ 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
⚠ 
⚠ 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 table  

| Location | Violation | Suggested fix |
|---|---|---|
| First line (“Subject: …”) | Missing top answer; title only | Insert a one‑sentence answer that states the recommended action (e.g., “We should redesign the graph‑book production process to eliminate duplication and improve data control”). |
| Sections “Production”, “Issues”, “Overall assessment” | Mixed‑kind first‑level groups (process steps, problem list, assessment) → violates same‑kind rule | Re‑structure into same‑kind groups that directly support the answer (e.g., **Reasons** for change, **Actions** to implement, **Risks**). |
| Entire memo | No explicit order (time, structure, ranking, etc.) | Choose an order type (e.g., **Structure**: parts of the new streamlined process) and label it in the intro. |
| “Issues” paragraph & “Overall assessment” | Overlap between problem description and assessment; gaps (no recommendations, no responsibility matrix) | Separate problems (facts) from analysis (reasons) and add a dedicated **Recommendations** group; fill gaps with clear ownership and next steps. |
| “Could we discuss …?” | Question placed at very end, not reflected in a top answer | Move the question to the SCQ intro and answer it up front; the memo should close the question, not open it. |
| Overall layout | No visible hierarchy (headings not nested, no indentation) | Use clear headings and indentation to show pyramid levels; optionally add a simple outline (Top → Group 1 → Support 1.1, etc.). |
| “Production” step list | Process described but not linked to the answer; buried conclusion that “process needs streamlining” appears only in assessment | Promote the conclusion to the top answer and use the production steps as supporting detail under a **Current Process** group. |

*(7 findings listed; all major defects captured.)*  

---  

### Score (0–2 per axis)  

| Axis | Score | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Top | **0** | No answer; only a subject line. |
| Same‑kind groups | **0** | Groups are mixed (steps, issues, assessment). |
| Order | **0** | No explicit ordering principle. |
| MECE | **0** | Overlaps between problems and assessment; gaps (no recommendations). |
| Display | **0** | Hierarchy not visible; flat memo. |

**Total:** 0 / 10 (not structured).  

---  

### Three highest‑impact fixes  

1. **Add a clear top answer** that states the recommended action and closes the implied question.  
2. **Re‑organize the memo into same‑kind groups** (e.g., Reasons, Actions, Risks) that directly support the top answer.  
3. **Apply a consistent order type** (e.g., Structure) and ensure the hierarchy is visible with headings/indentation, eliminating overlaps and filling the missing recommendation gap.