Raw

Legend: `▲` top/answer · `●` first-level group · `○` supporting detail · `⚠` violation · `↑` buried conclusion · `⇄` wrong order · `⊗` overlap · `⊕` gap · `✂` cut/move

**Annotated text**

```text
⚠ This memorandum describes how project teams identify and deliver
  significant profit improvements.          [statement of purpose — names the
                                             topic, answers nothing; ▲ missing]
✂ It is organized in six sections:          [apparatus, not an argument]

    ⚠ Background                            [topic label, not a claim]
    ⚠ Principles of the project-team approach   ⊗ with "Definition" / "Organization"
    ⚠ Definition of project work                ⊗ — three headings all describe
    ⚠ Organization of the program               ⊗   what the thing is
    ●? Distinctive benefits and results       [the only heading of the kind the
                                               reader's question demands — demoted
                                               to fifth of six; ↑]
    ⚠ Conditions required for success       [different kind again: requirements,
    ⇄ across all six — order not explicable   not reasons, not parts]
    ⊕ no section states what is asked of the reader (decision / action)
```

**Findings** (most severe first)

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Opening sentence | No top: "describes how…" is a statement of purpose, not an answer to any reader question; there is no answer anywhere in the visible text | Convert the topic into the reader's question ("Should we adopt the project-team approach, and what will it take?") and open with the answer in one sentence |
| All six headings | Topic labels, not claims: the key line carries no assertions, so the skeleton cannot be read for meaning | Rewrite each heading as the conclusion its section supports |
| Six sections | Mixed kinds in one group: context, three descriptive sections, benefits, requirements — no single plural noun covers them | Re-group into 3–4 same-kind groups of the kind the reader's question demands |
| Sections 2–4 | Probable overlap: "Principles," "Definition," and "Organization" all belong to what-the-approach-is — one category split three ways | Merge into one "what the approach is" branch, or demote to supports under a claim |
| Heading 5 | Buried logic: "Distinctive benefits and results" is the reader-facing payoff — the real key line — demoted to fifth place | Promote benefits/reasons to the first level of the pyramid |
| Section order | No explicable ordering principle; headings sit in recall order | Choose and name one order (e.g. ranking of reasons, or time for implementation steps) |
| Whole setout | Gap: no branch states what the reader must decide or do | Add the ask — decision, approval, or action — as the close of the key line |

**Score: 2 / 10 — not structured yet**

| Axis | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Top | 0 | No answer; only a statement of purpose |
| Same-kind groups | 0 | Full mix: context, parts, reasons, requirements |
| Order | 0 | Unexplainable |
| MECE | 1 | Overlap among the descriptive sections; the decision/action category missing |
| Display | 1 | The list is visible, but it displays topics, not logic |

**The three fixes that buy the most**

1. Replace the purpose sentence with a one-sentence answer to the reader's question — the reason for acting, not the mechanics of the approach.
2. Turn the six topic headings into 3–4 claim headings of one kind (reasons to adopt, or actions to take), promoting "benefits and results" to the first level.
3. Merge "Principles / Definition / Organization" into a single descriptive branch and state explicitly what decision is asked of the reader.

One line: say `write` and supply the body, and I will restructure the memorandum against this audit.