Raw

## Marker legend

`▲` top / answer · `●` first-level group · `○` supporting detail · `⚠` 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, no Complication, no Question on the page]
⚠ It is organized in six sections:  [six, not three or four]

    ⚠ ✂ Background            [container word — could hold anything; not on the
                               same level of abstraction as the others]
    ● Principles of the project-team approach     [principles]
    ● Definition of project work                  [definition]
        ⊗ overlaps "Principles" and "Organization" — what the work is, what governs
          it and how it is run are not three separable claims
    ● Organization of the program                 [mechanics]
    ● Distinctive benefits and results            [reasons — the only heading of the
      ↑ kind the reader's question demands; sits fifth]
    ● Conditions required for success             [conditions / risks]
⚠ six headings, five different kinds, no ordering principle stated or visible
⊕ nothing answers "should we do this" — no recommendation, no top
```

## Findings

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Opening sentence | No answer anywhere in the visible document — and the kind that belongs there is missing too: a reader deciding whether to commission project teams needs the reasons to do so (what they get, at what cost), not a description of how the approach works | Replace with the one-sentence answer the body supports, e.g. a recommendation with its payoff |
| Opening sentence | Statement of purpose in place of an introduction: no Situation, no Complication, no Question | Tell the story — what the reader already accepts, what changed, then the question the memo closes |
| Setout, all six | Mixed kinds in one group: principles, a definition, mechanics, benefits, conditions. No plural noun covers them | Re-derive the kind from the reader's question, then refill; make benefits the first level and demote mechanics under them |
| Setout, all six | Six first-level elements, no explicable order — not time, not structure, not ranking | Collapse to 3–4 and name the order |
| "Definition of project work" vs "Principles" / "Organization" | ⊗ Overlap: the same content can be filed under any of the three | Merge into one branch, or redraw the boundary |
| "Background" | Container heading; abstraction level does not match the key line; likely holds the Situation that belongs in the prose intro | Cut as a heading; fold its content into the introduction |
| "Distinctive benefits and results" | ↑ The reader's answer is buried in position five | Promote to the top and to the first branch |

## Score

| Axis | Score |
|---|---|
| Top | 0 — no answer, only a topic |
| Same-kind groups | 0 — five kinds in six headings |
| Order | 0 — no principle discernible |
| MECE | 0 — overlap across three headings, no answer-bearing category |
| Display | 1 — the setout is visible, but the hierarchy it shows is flat and one level deep |

**1 / 10 — not structured yet.**

## The three fixes that buy the most

1. Put the answer first: one sentence saying what the reader should do about project teams and what they get.
2. Rebuild the first level as reasons (the reader's payoff), and hang principles, definition and organization underneath as support.
3. Cut "Background" as a heading and turn the opening into a Situation → Complication → Question story, ending on the question the memo answers.

Say the word and I'll run `write` on the setout — restructuring only what is visible, with the missing body marked as gaps.