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**

```
⚠ ⊕ Subject: Period Graph Books                     ← no top‑line answer; missing SCQ intro

● 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?          ← buried conclusion; should be the answer line
```

---

**Findings table**

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Subject line | No top‑line answer; missing SCQ intro (⊕) | Insert a one‑sentence answer that addresses the reader’s question, preceded by a brief Situation‑Complication‑Question story. |
| Production / Issues / Overall assessment | Mixed‑kind groups and false grouping (⚠) | Re‑structure into same‑kind groups (e.g., “Root causes”, “Impact”, “Recommended actions”). |
| Overall document | Overlap & gaps between Issues and Overall assessment (⊗, ⊕) | Consolidate duplicated problem statements, ensure each issue appears once under the appropriate group. |
| Bottom question | Conclusion buried lower (↑) | Promote the decision request to the top as the answer line; keep the “discuss” ask as the next step. |
| Heading hierarchy | No visible hierarchy; headings do not summarize children (⚠) | Use clear headings that act as summary statements for the sections they introduce. |
| Order of content | No explicit ordering principle across sections (⚠) | Apply a logical order (e.g., Situation → Complication → Analysis → Recommendation). |
| Lack of recommendations | Gap – no actionable proposal (⊕) | Add a concise recommendation section with concrete next steps. |

---

**Score (0–2 per axis)**  

- Top: **0** – no answer present.  
- Same‑kind groups: **0** – groups mix reasons, steps, assessments.  
- Order: **0** – no explicit, justified ordering across the memo.  
- MECE: **0** – overlaps and missing categories.  
- Display: **0** – hierarchy not visible at a glance.  

**Total:** 0 / 10 (not structured).

---

**Top three fixes (most impact)**  

1. **Add a clear SCQ intro with a one‑sentence answer** at the very top, turning the memo into an answer‑first document.  
2. **Re‑organize the body into same‑kind groups** (e.g., “Root causes”, “Consequences”, “Proposed actions”) and ensure each group is MECE.  
3. **Promote the decision request to the answer line** and follow with a concise recommendation section, making the conclusion visible and actionable.