Raw

**Legend:** ▲ top/answer · ● first-level group · ○ support · ⚠ violation · ↑ buried conclusion · ⇄ wrong order · ⊗ overlap · ⊕ gap · ✂ cut/appendix

## 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. [⚠ this is a topic label,
not an answer — reader asked for corrective proposals, i.e. wants to know
what to do; nothing here says what]

Production                                            [⚠ mixed kind vs. the
                                                        two sections below —
                                                        this is a process
                                                        description, not a
                                                        reason or an action]

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.
[time order, internally fine — but it sits at the same level as "Issues" and
"Overall assessment," which are a different kind of thing entirely]

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. [↑ this is
close to the real cause — "fragmented, multiply-entered process" — but it is
demoted to a passing sentence instead of promoted to a branch]

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. [⊕ only one of the four books is examined; the memo
was commissioned about "four graph-presentation books" — no coverage of the
other three, so the reader can't tell if the same problems recur elsewhere]
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. [⚠ these
four items are listed in recall order, no ranking or grouping by cause —
also ⊗ they substantially restate the "fragmentation / triple entry" point
already made above, just at a lower level of detail]

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. [↑ this is the actual diagnosis — it should be the
top, not the third section]
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. [↑ this is the actual recommendation — again,
buried instead of leading]

Could we discuss how best to proceed? [⚠ the memo was asked to propose
corrective action and ends by handing the question back to the reader —
no ▲ answer is ever stated]
```

## Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Whole memo — no top | Management asked for corrective proposals; the memo never states a recommendation, only a closing question | State the answer as line 1: what to do (e.g., "we recommend consolidating production and adding staff/time to redesign it") — the reader's question demands actions, not a topic description |
| "Overall assessment" section | The real conclusions ("process needs streamlining," "current team can't manage the change") sit at the very end instead of at the top | Promote both sentences to the key line; everything above becomes their support |
| Production / Issues / Overall assessment as first-level groups | Three different kinds side by side — a process, a problem list, and a diagnosis — fail the same-kind test | Keep Production as backup/appendix detail; make the first-level groups out of the diagnosis + recommendation, each supported by problem evidence and process detail below it |
| "Problems include…" list | Four symptoms in recall order, no ranking or causal order, and largely restating the fragmentation point already made a sentence earlier | Order by cause → effect or by severity; state the fragmentation cause once, then hang the four symptoms under it as evidence, not as a parallel list |
| "For one book, divisional data are loaded…" | Detail for only one of the four books cited in the opening sentence — coverage gap against the stated scope | Either state explicitly that this book is illustrative and the others share the pattern, or note per-book variation; otherwise the "four books" framing is not backed |
| Closing line | Ends on a question to the reader rather than the requested proposal | Replace with the recommendation and a specific ask ("agree to X by Y date"), matching what was actually requested |

## Score

| Axis | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Top | 0/2 | No answer anywhere; ends with a question instead |
| Same-kind groups | 0/2 | Process description, problem list, and diagnosis mixed at one level |
| Order | 1/2 | Production section is cleanly time-ordered; Issues section has no explicable order |
| MECE | 1/2 | Overlap between the fragmentation point and the symptom list; gap — only one of four books covered |
| Display | 1/2 | Headings exist but don't mirror a hierarchy of answer → reasons → evidence |

**Total: 3/10 — not structured yet.**

## Three fixes that buy the most

1. State the recommendation as the first line — the diagnosis and fix sitting in "Overall assessment" need to move to the top.
2. Rebuild the first-level groups around that recommendation (e.g., causes of the current failures / what streamlining changes / what resourcing is needed), demoting "Production" to supporting detail.
3. Cover all four books, or explicitly flag the single-book example as illustrative, so the scope matches the claim in the opening sentence.

---
Would you like a `write` pass to draft the restructured memo?