Raw

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

---

```text
Subject: Period Graph Books                                    ⚠ [topic label, not an answer]

○  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.          ⚠ [statement of purpose — names the topic, answers nothing]

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.
✂  [current-state run-up placed before any question; belongs under the answer as support]

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.
⚠ [cause stated as fact]
⊗ [fragmentation claim repeated verbatim in "Overall assessment"]

○  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.
⚠⇄ [mechanics, then symptoms, in recall order:]
   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 in one group: causes, mechanics, and four symptoms]

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.
⊕ [no corrective proposal anywhere — the one branch management asked for]

○  Could we discuss how best to proceed?                       ⚠ [ask with no answer attached]
```

## Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Whole document | No answer to the asked question: management requested corrective proposals, and none appear — the memo ends at diagnosis plus "could we discuss". The missing kind is actions, not more analysis | State the proposals as the top, or state plainly that proposals will follow and say by when |
| "Overall assessment" | The only answer-shaped sentence ("badly needs streamlining… current team cannot manage the changes") is buried at the end | Promote it to line one, under the reader's literal question |
| "Issues" paragraph | Mixed kinds in one group: cause (fragmentation), mechanics (re-entry chain), and four symptoms in recall order | Split into causes and symptoms; order each group (ranking by severity works for symptoms) |
| "Issues" vs "Overall assessment" | ⊗ Overlap: "fragmented process" is claimed twice, once as observation and once as conclusion | Keep it once, at the top; let the observation support it |
| "Production" section | Current-state run-up leads the document before any question exists on the page | Move below the answer as support, or compress to one Situation clause |
| Missing branch | ⊕ Gap: no proposals, no owner, no next step — CE broken against the requested scope | Add the proposals branch, or mark `[data needed: proposal options]` |
| "Issues" order | ⇄ No explicable order within the symptoms list | Assign ranking (severity / frequency) and name it |

## Score

| Axis | 0–2 |
|---|---|
| Top | 1 — an answer exists but is vague and sits at the end; the requested kind (proposals) is absent |
| Same-kind groups | 0 — the core group mixes causes, mechanics and symptoms |
| Order | 1 — time order in the production steps; recall order where it matters |
| MECE | 1 — one clear overlap, one clear gap |
| Display | 1 — headings present, but no key line; skeleton not readable at a glance |

**5 / 10 — baseline workable.** The material is sound; the structure hides it.

## The three fixes that buy the most

1. Open with the answer and management's question: "The graph-book process needs streamlining and a dedicated team to do it — here is what we propose," then let everything below support that.
2. Rebuild "Issues" into two same-kind groups — root causes (fragmentation, triple entry, no end-to-end owner) and symptoms (inconsistencies, wrong cost calcs, unexplained changes) — each in a stated order.
3. Add the missing branch: concrete corrective proposals, or an explicit commitment to deliver them by a date.

Say the word and I'll restructure the memo along these lines.