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 |

---

### Annotated memo (only passages with findings are marked)

```
⚠ Subject: Period Graph Books                     ← top does not answer a reader 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.

● 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?          ← gap: no concrete recommendation or decision
```

---

### Findings table (most severe first, ≤ 7 rows)

| Location | Violation | Suggested fix |
|---|---|---|
| `Subject: Period Graph Books` | Top line does not answer the reader’s decision question (Rule 1) | Replace with a one‑sentence answer that states the recommended action |
| Intro paragraph & final question | Missing SCQ structure; no explicit Question‑Answer (Rule 6) | Rewrite intro as Situation → Complication → Question → Answer, placing the answer at the top |
| `Issues` / `Overall assessment` sections | Mixed‑kind first‑level groups (actions vs. reasons vs. summary) (Rule 3) | Align groups to a single kind that answers the top question (e.g., reasons for problems, options for improvement) |
| `Issues` / `Overall assessment` | Overlap/duplicate content (ME broken) (Rule 5) | Consolidate overlapping problem descriptions into one coherent reasons group |
| `Could we discuss…` | Gap: no concrete recommendation or next step (CE broken) (Rule 5) | Add a clear recommendation and required decision/action |
| Section headings | Structure not visible at a glance (Rule 7) | Use numbered headings (e.g., 1. Situation, 2. Complication, 3. Recommendation) to make hierarchy obvious |
| Production steps vs. Issues list | Inconsistent order type (time vs. unordered) (Rule 4) | Apply a single ordering principle (e.g., time for process steps, ranking for issues) and label it |

---

### Score (0 – 2 per axis, total / 10)

| Axis | Score |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 |
| Same‑kind groups | 1 |
| Order | 1 |
| MECE | 1 |
| Display | 1 |
| **Total** | **4 / 10** (baseline workable) |

---

### Three highest‑impact fixes

1. **Insert a top‑level answer sentence** that directly answers the decision question (e.g., “We recommend streamlining the graph‑book production process to eliminate duplicated data entry and reduce errors.”).  
2. **Re‑structure the memo as an SCQ story**: Situation (current responsibility), Complication (fragmented process & errors), Question (how should we proceed?), Answer (the recommendation from #1).  
3. **Consolidate the “Issues” and “Overall assessment” into a single “Reasons” group**, remove duplicated content, and add a concise “Recommendation” section with next steps.