Raw

▲ `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

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

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Top / Intro | No answer; statement of purpose ("This memo describes...") | Replace with SCQ intro and answer-first top recommending streamlining. |
| Headings | Mixed kinds ("Production" vs "Issues"); unexplainable order | Restructure into same-kind groups answering the reader's question (e.g., Causes, Actions). |
| End of text | Conclusion buried; duplicate summary in "Overall assessment" | Promote conclusion to top; merge duplicate content. |
| Closing | Vague question; missing clear ask | State specific decision or next step required. |
| Hierarchy | "Issues" does not summarize "Production"; vertical disconnect | Ensure parents generalize children; move mechanics to supports. |

### Score

| Axis | Score |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 |
| Same-kind groups | 0 |
| Order | 0 |
| MECE | 1 |
| Display | 1 |
| **Total** | **2 / 10** |

Band: `0–3` not structured yet

### Three fixes that buy the most

1. Replace the subject line and opening with an SCQ intro and a top sentence stating the recommendation to streamline the process and centralize data control.
2. Reorganize the body into 3–4 same-kind groups (such as root causes and recommended actions) that directly support the top, demoting process mechanics to supporting details.
3. Move the conclusion currently at the end to the top position and replace the final question with a precise request for decision or approval.