Raw

**Markers:**

| Marker | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ▲ | top / answer |
| ● | first-level group |
| ⚠ | violation (mixed kinds) |
| ↑ | conclusion buried lower than belongs |
| ⊕ | gap — missing element |

---

▲ [*missing: no answer at top*]

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 [mixes system-level fragmentation with specific book workflow — not same-kind]

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? [reader asked for corrective proposals; no action recommended]

---

**Findings:**

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Opening to close | No answer at top; document provides diagnosis but not recommendation | Start with "We recommend [action] because [reason]" — the reader asked for corrective proposals, not a question back |
| Overall structure | Missing action branch [⊕]; reader needs options or a specific recommended action to address fragmentation | Add recommended actions: e.g., appoint single owner, consolidate data systems, assign capacity to manage the change |
| Issues section (two paragraphs) | Mixed kinds [⚠]: first paragraph is system-level fragmentation; second is specific book workflow; not same-kind | Separate into (a) common problems observed, (b) shared root cause (no single owner), using specific book as evidence not parallel element |
| Overall assessment (conclusions) | Key insights [↑] buried: "streamlining needed" and "team cannot manage changes" should shape the recommendation at top | Promote to answer: these constraints determine why the fix must be structural, not procedural; use assessment for supporting analysis only |
| Issues section (prose form) | Structure invisible; hard to distinguish symptoms from causes from implications | Add subheadings: Observed Problems / Root Cause / Barrier to Fix — makes diagnosis clear enough to support a recommendation |

**Score:**

| Axis | Rating |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 — No answer; ends with question instead of recommendation |
| Same-kind groups | 1 — Production is uniform (steps); Issues mixes system-level + instance-level |
| Order | 1 — Sequence exists (Production → Issues → Assessment) but not explicitly justified |
| MECE | 0 — Major gap: no options or actions proposed; reader cannot act |
| Display | 1 — Headings present; Production structured; Issues and Assessment are dense prose |

**Total: 3 / 10** — not structured yet (band 0–3)

**Three highest-leverage fixes:**

1. **State a recommendation at the top.** Replace the opening background with: "We recommend [appoint single manager to control data end-to-end + consolidate to one system] because the fragmented process allows errors to fall between stages and prevents clear accountability."

2. **Restructure Issues into same-kind groups.** Separate: (a) problems observed with which books/calculations fail, (b) root cause (fragmentation, no single owner, unclear responsibility), (c) team capacity constraint that blocks a procedural-only fix. Use the specific book example as evidence, not as a parallel issue.

3. **Make Issues hierarchy visible.** Break the prose section with subheadings or numbering so the reader can see: what errors appear → why they happen → what blocks the current team from fixing it. This clarifies the diagnosis enough to motivate the recommendation.