Raw

▲ `top / answer`  
● `first-level group`  
○ `supporting detail`  
⚠ `violation (mixed kinds, unexplainable order, false grouping)`  
↑ `conclusion buried lower than it belongs — promote it`  
⇄ `wrong order type here`  
⊗ `overlap (ME broken)`  
⊕ `gap (CE broken)`  
✂ `cut, or move to an appendix`

⚠ 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Subject / Opening | Top does not answer; Intro states purpose | Replace with answer-first top; rewrite intro as SCQ story |
| Overall assessment | Buried conclusion; Gap in proposals | Promote conclusion to top; add specific corrective actions |
| Production | Mixed kinds; Detail elevated to group | Move details under findings; rename groups to same-kind categories |
| Issues / Assessment | Overlap; Unexplainable order | Merge overlapping points; order groups by ranking or deduction |
| Closing | No action requested | Replace discussion request with decision/sign-off |

## Score

**Top:** 0 · **Same-kind groups:** 0 · **Order:** 0 · **MECE:** 0 · **Display:** 1  
**Total:** 1/10 · **Band:** 0–3 not structured yet

## Three fixes

1. Rewrite the top to state the recommendation: Streamline the graph book production by centralizing data control and automating calculations to eliminate errors.
2. Reorganize the body into three groups of reasons supporting the recommendation (e.g., Data Integrity, Process Efficiency, Resource Allocation), moving the assessment findings into these groups.
3. Replace the closing question with a clear call to action requesting approval for the proposed restructuring plan.