Raw

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

## Annotated text

```
Subject: Period Graph Books

[⚠ no ▲] 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.
[This is a topic label — "describes issues" — not an answer. Management asked
for corrective proposals; the reader's question is "what should we do", and
nothing here or later states it.]

[⚠ topic-label heading, not a claim] Production
[✂ — this section is process mechanics (how the books are made), not a reason
or an action. It supports the Issues section but is placed as if it were a
first-level element.]

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.

[⚠ topic-label heading, not a claim] Issues

[● cause] The transfer inserted another person into an already fragmented process.
[● cause] Divisional staff and three corporate departments participate, and the same
information may be entered into computer systems three times.
[⊗ these two causal statements and the symptom list below are treated as one
group, but they are different kinds — causes vs. observed defects.]

[○ symptom, one-book only] 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.
[⊕ gap: these four defects are reported only for one of the four books — no
statement of whether the other three books share them, so coverage of "the
process" is incomplete.]

[⚠ topic-label heading, not a claim] Overall assessment

[↑ buried conclusion #1] 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. [↑ buried conclusion #2 — this is the actual recommendation, four
paragraphs from the top] The production process badly needs streamlining, both for each
book and for common calculations. [↑ buried conclusion #3] The current team cannot manage the required
changes as well as ongoing production.

[⚠ no ▲, ends on a question instead of an answer] Could we discuss how best to proceed?
```

## Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Opening line / closing line | No top exists anywhere; the memo opens with a topic label and closes with a question instead of an answer | State the actual recommendation (streamline the process; get dedicated resources to do it) as the first line |
| "Overall assessment" | Three conclusions the reader needs most — fragmentation is the root cause, the process needs streamlining, the current team can't do this alongside production — sit buried in the last paragraph | Promote all three to first-level branches under the top |
| "Issues" | Causes ("another person inserted," "triple entry") and symptoms ("inconsistent data," "wrong calculations," "unexplained changes," "re-entry") are one group but are two different kinds | Split into a causes group and a defects group, or keep causes at first level and demote symptoms as their supports |
| "Production" | A full four-step process walkthrough is given first-level standing, but it answers "how are the books made," not the reader's question of what to fix | Cut to an appendix or fold into supports under the fragmentation cause |
| Symptom paragraph | Defects reported for one of four books only, with no statement on the other three | Mark as ⊕ gap: "[data needed: do books 2–4 show the same defects?]" |
| Headings | "Production," "Issues," "Overall assessment" are topic labels, not claims — the hierarchy is invisible at a glance | Rename headings to state the claim each section makes |
| Whole document | No explicit order type — sections run in narration order (history → steps → symptoms → afterthought conclusion) rather than one the reader can follow | Choose ranking (most costly defect first) or deduction (fragmentation → specific failures → therefore streamline) and say so |

## Score

| Axis | Score |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 — no answer anywhere |
| Same-kind groups | 1 — Issues mixes causes and symptoms |
| Order | 1 — narration order, not explicable to the reader's question |
| MECE | 1 — overlap between causes/symptoms; gap on book coverage |
| Display | 1 — headings are topic labels, not claims |

**Total: 4/10 — baseline workable**

## Three fixes that buy the most

1. Replace the closing question with an actual recommendation as the opening line — the memo currently has no answer to deliver.
2. Promote the three buried conclusions in "Overall assessment" (fragmentation as root cause, need to streamline, current team overloaded) to first-level branches.
3. Split "Issues" into same-kind groups — causes vs. observed defects — and close the one-book coverage gap.