Raw

Legend: ▲ top / answer · ● first-level group · ○ support · ⚠ structural violation · ↑ buried conclusion · ⇄ wrong order · ⊗ overlap · ⊕ gap · ✂ cut or move to appendix

```text
Subject: Period Graph Books ⚠ Topic label; it does not answer management’s question.

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. ⚠ Purpose statement, not an
SCQ introduction; the reader’s decision question is unstated.

Production ⚠ A process description appears before the conclusion or proposed
changes it is meant to support.

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. ⇄ The order is nominally time-based, but
   checking may be needed at multiple stages; the control points are not defined.

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. ↑ This is a
conclusion about the root cause and should sit directly under the answer.

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. ✂ Supporting process detail belongs under a specific
conclusion, not as a parallel argument.

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. ⚠ Mixed kinds:
data-quality defects, calculation errors, change-control failures, and rework.
⊕ No indication of which defects affect which books or stages.

Overall assessment

Most problems arise from a cumbersome fragmented process. ⊗ Repeats the earlier
root-cause conclusion.

No one controls the data from beginning to end, responsibility is unclear, and
errors can fall between stages. ● A potential first-level group, but it is
buried among conclusions and overlaps with “fragmented process.”

The production process badly needs streamlining, both for each book and for
common calculations. ↑ This is the closest thing to the recommendation, but it
is vague: management needs the changes to approve, not only the need to change.

The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing production.
⊕ The implied resourcing decision is unsupported: no capacity, scope, timing, or
alternative delivery model is provided.

Could we discuss how best to proceed? ⚠ The document ends with an open discussion
request rather than a recommendation or decision ask.
```

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Subject and opening | No answer to management’s decision question | Open with one actionable recommendation: the corrective changes required and the decision sought. |
| Opening | SCQ is incomplete; the Question never appears | State the shared situation, explain why the transfer now forces a choice, then put the literal decision question and answer on the page. |
| Overall assessment | The answer is buried and vague | Promote the recommendation above the process detail; distinguish streamlining, ownership/control, and delivery capacity if these are separate actions. |
| Issues / overall assessment | Root-cause logic overlaps and repeats | Consolidate the duplicated “fragmented process” conclusion; make each first-level branch a distinct corrective action or distinct reason for the recommendation. |
| “Problems include…” | Mixed-kind group | Separate defects by a single basis, such as data integrity, calculation integrity, change control, and rework—if supported by the evidence. |
| Production section | Detail precedes the logic it supports | Move each process step beneath the relevant conclusion; retain only details that demonstrate a specific failure or change requirement. |
| Resourcing claim | Evidence gap ⊕ | Supply the workload/capacity evidence and specify what management must approve: resources, ownership, process redesign, or a combination. |

| Axis | Score | Assessment |
|---|---:|---|
| Top | 0/2 | No actionable answer; only a discussion request. |
| Same-kind groups | 0/2 | Process steps, symptoms, causes, and recommendations are mixed. |
| Order | 1/2 | Production steps are broadly chronological, but the argument itself follows recall order. |
| MECE | 0/2 | Root-cause statements overlap; the defect set lacks a complete classification. |
| Display | 1/2 | Section headings help, but they expose topics rather than an argument hierarchy. |

**Score: 2/10 — not structured yet.**

The three highest-value fixes:

1. Define the management question as a decision about corrective action, then lead with one specific recommendation.  
2. Organize the body into 3–4 same-kind, non-overlapping corrective actions or reasons for the recommendation—not process, symptoms, and conclusions mixed together.  
3. Put process detail and error examples beneath the conclusion they prove, and provide evidence for the claimed need for additional capacity.