Raw

## Audit — Fixture 07: headings audit

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

### Annotated opening

```text
⚠ ✂ This memorandum describes how project teams identify and deliver significant
      profit improvements.  [statement of purpose — names the topic, answers nothing]
⊕ [no Situation the reader already accepts; no Complication; no Question; no Answer]
⚠ It is organized in six sections:  [table of contents standing in for a key line]

  ● Background                                    ⚠ ✂ label heading, not an idea
  ● Principles of the project-team approach       ⚠ kind: principles
  ● Definition of project work                    ⚠ kind: definition  ⊗ overlaps "Principles"
  ● Organization of the program                   ⚠ kind: mechanics ("how the system works")
  ● Distinctive benefits and results              ⚠ kind: reasons/payoff  ↑ the only branch that answers a decider
  ● Conditions required for success               ⚠ kind: conditions/caveats
  ⇄ [six headings in no statable order — not time, structure, ranking, deduction or induction]
```

### Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| First sentence | No top: purpose statement instead of an answer. The document says what it *describes*, so the reader cannot be contradicted by it | State in one sentence what the reader should conclude or do about project teams |
| Whole opening | No reader's question on the page, and no reader named — six headings answer six different questions | Write one literal question the memo closes, and name who is deciding |
| Whole opening | No SCQ: nothing the reader already accepts, nothing that changed, no turn | Open with the situation and the complication that make project teams a live choice |
| Setout, all six lines | Mixed kinds — principles, a definition, mechanics, benefits, conditions cannot sit under one plural noun | Pick the kind the question demands (payoffs if the reader is deciding; actions if the reader has already decided) and refill the level |
| Setout order | No explicable ordering principle | Choose and show one order type |
| "Definition of project work" vs "Principles of the project-team approach" | `⊗` overlap: define-the-approach content fits both | Merge; keep the definition as a support |
| "Background" | Label heading at a different level of abstraction from the rest; it is intro material promoted to a branch | Fold into the running SCQ intro, not the key line |

Two further findings not tabled: "Distinctive benefits and results" is the one branch of a decider's kind and sits fifth of six (`↑`); six first-level groups exceed the 3–4 the reader can hold.

### Score — 2/10 (not structured yet)

| Axis | Score | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Top | 0 | Purpose statement; no answer anywhere visible |
| Same-kind groups | 0 | Five distinct kinds across six headings |
| Order | 0 | No order type statable |
| MECE | 1 | One clear overlap; coverage unjudgeable without the body |
| Display | 1 | A setout exists and is scannable, but it mirrors a contents list, not a hierarchy |

Scope note: only the opening was assessed. The body is unavailable, so vertical logic (does each parent summarize its children) is untested, and gaps `⊕` below the first level are not claimed.

### Three fixes that buy the most

1. Replace the purpose statement with the answer — the one sentence about project teams the reader could argue with.
2. Write the reader's question, then discard any heading that answers a different one.
3. Collapse the six headings to 3–4 of a single kind, demoting Background, Definition and Organization to supports.

Say the word and I'll take this to `write`.