Raw

**Legend:**
| Marker | Meaning |
|---|---|
| `▲` | top / answer |
| `●` | first-level group |
| `⚠` | violation |
| `↑` | conclusion buried lower than it belongs |
| `⊕` | gap |

---

**Annotated text:**

▲ Subject: Period Graph Books

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?

---

**Findings**

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Opening / closing | No answer stated; memo asks "could we discuss?" instead of proposing a recommendation | Open with the recommendation: "We recommend consolidating data management under one owner and integrating the three systems" |
| Production section | Describes current mechanics, but reader asks "what should we change?"—wrong kind | Move to appendix; argument must answer what to change, not how things currently work |
| Issues list | Four problem types (redundancy, inconsistency, calculation errors, unexplained changes) lack consistent organizing principle | Group by root cause: all stem from fragmented responsibility and multiple data-entry points |
| Overall assessment | Core conclusion ("needs streamlining") is closest thing to an answer but buried at level 3, not top; answer is vague | Promote to top and specify what streamlining means—state the 2–3 actual proposals |
| Main structure | Process → Issues → Assessment lacks explicable order; reader must infer that issues prove the process is broken | Restructure: Answer → Why (root causes) → What (proposals) → Next steps |

---

**Score**

| Axis | 0–2 | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Top | **0** | No answer; opening is a topic label |
| Same-kind groups | **0** | Production (mechanics), Issues (mixed problems), Assessment (conclusion) |
| Order | **0** | No explicable order type |
| MECE | **1** | Problem categories unclear; field undefined |
| Display | **1** | Headings present but structure not visible |
| **Total** | **2** | Band: `0–3` not structured yet |

---

**Three fixes that buy the most**

1. State the recommendation at the top: "We recommend consolidating data management under a single owner with an integrated system to eliminate redundant data entry and control errors."

2. Cut Production section; reorganize Issues by root cause (fragmented responsibility → multiple entries → inconsistencies) to support why the recommendation is needed.

3. Close with a specific next step—who develops the proposal, by when, what approval is needed—instead of asking the reader what to do.