Raw

## Audit — "Period Graph Books"

**Reader:** senior management, who asked for corrective proposals.
**Question they hold:** *What should we do about the errors in the graph books?*
**Kind of answer that belongs on top:** actions — the changes to make and who makes them. The document delivers a process description and a diagnosis instead, and ends by asking for a meeting.

### Legend

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

### Annotated text

```text
⚠ Subject: Period Graph Books                        ← topic label, not an answer

Since Period 5, Financial Analysis has been responsible for producing four
graph-presentation books previously handled by Corporate Planning. [○ Situation — sound]
This memo describes issues that appeared after the transfer.
⚠ statement of purpose: names the topic, answers nothing; also no Complication —
  the reader is never told what forces a decision now

● Production                                          ⚠ wrong kind: this answers
1. Gather data from divisional forms, internal documents, and telephone calls.   "how does it work
2. Calculate graph points manually or on the corporate computer, including       today", not "what
   rolling values for revenue, cost, and percentages.                           should we do"
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.
✂ mechanics of the current state — belongs in an appendix, or as support under
  the branch it evidences

● 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. [○ cause]

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. ⊗ repeats step 3 above under a second heading
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.
⚠ one group holding four kinds at once: a cause (fragmentation), a process
  narrative, and a list of symptoms
⊕ no evidence attached: no counts, periods, or books affected

● 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 memo's real controlling idea, sitting on the last page

↑ The production process badly needs streamlining, both for each book and for
  common calculations.  ← the recommendation, stated once, in passing, unowned
↑ The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing
  production.  ← the actual ask (resources), disguised as an observation

⚠ Could we discuss how best to proceed?
  ⊕ no proposal, no options, no owner, no date — the reader was asked for
    corrective proposals and receives a request for a meeting
```

### Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Subject + para. 1 | No answer anywhere in the document. The reader asked *what to do*; the memo never states an action to take. This is not a misplaced answer — it is a missing one. | Top must be the recommendation: streamline production under single ownership, with the resources to do it. |
| Closing line | The ask is "could we discuss", so the decision is handed back to the reader. | State what you need: approval to redesign, and staffing for the transition. |
| "Overall assessment" | Buried logic: the controlling idea (fragmentation, no end-to-end owner), the recommendation (streamline), and the ask (the team cannot do both) all sit at the bottom. | Promote all three above the evidence; everything else becomes support. |
| "Production" section | Wrong kind on the first level: four steps of current mechanics standing where reasons or actions belong. | Move to an appendix, or hang under the branch it proves ("three re-entries of the same data"). |
| "Issues" section | Mixed kinds in one group — a cause, a process narrative, and a symptom list. | Split: fragmentation is the cause and becomes a branch; the symptoms become supports beneath it. |
| Symptom list vs. "Production" step 3 | Overlap: the re-entry cycle is described twice under two headings. | One home for it, with all its evidence gathered there. |
| Symptom list | Gap: four defect classes named with no measurement of frequency, cost, or which books are affected. | Attach evidence per class, or mark `[data needed]` — a claim of severity with no scale cannot carry a resource request. |

### Score — 3/10, *not structured yet*

| Axis | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Top | 0 | Topic label; no answer in the document |
| Same-kind groups | 1 | "Production" internally uniform; "Issues" fully mixed |
| Order | 1 | Present (mechanics → problems → assessment) but it is the author's discovery order, not the reader's |
| MECE | 0 | Re-entry cycle duplicated; symptoms unevidenced; proposals absent entirely |
| Display | 1 | Headings exist, but they are topic words, so the skeleton shows nothing |

### The three fixes that buy the most

1. Put the recommendation on top: consolidate production of all four books under one owner and one data path — and say what that costs.
2. Convert the first level from *description* to *actions*: what changes, who owns each change, by when. Current mechanics drop to appendix.
3. Replace "could we discuss" with the specific decision required — sign-off plus interim resourcing, since the team cannot redesign and produce simultaneously.

Say the word and I'll draft the restructured memo (`write`).