Raw

Legend:  
▲ top / answer  
● first-level group  
○ supporting detail  
⚠ violation  
↑ promote  
⇄ wrong order type  
⊗ overlap  
⊕ gap  
✂ cut, or move to an appendix  

```text
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? [⊕]
```

| Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| `Subject` + first paragraph | Top is a topic label and purpose statement; it does not answer the reader’s question for corrective proposals. The only answer is buried and vague. | Make the first line a one-sentence recommendation naming the corrective changes and the decision management must make. |
| Whole memo | Gap: no corrective options, criteria, owners, timeline, or resource impact; the reader cannot approve anything. | Add 3–4 same-kind action branches, such as ownership, single data entry, calculation control, and resourcing, with a next decision. |
| `Overall assessment` + closing line | Buried logic: the conclusion appears late and ends with an open request to discuss rather than a proposal. | Promote the recommendation before the discussion request and convert the closing line into a specific next step. |
| `Issues` ¶1 + `Overall assessment` ¶1 | Overlap: fragmented process, no control, unclear responsibility, and errors between stages repeat the same root cause. | Keep one root-cause branch, no end-to-end ownership, and attach the other statements as supports. |
| `Issues` ¶2 | Mixed kinds: a process example, a symptom list, and a re-entry burden are combined in one paragraph. | Split into cause, repeated entry; effects, inconsistent or incorrect data; and scope, books and common calculations. |
| `Production` list | Current-state description only; no owner, control point, or failure mode, so it does not support a corrective action. | Tie each step to a proposed change or move the detailed process to an appendix. |
| Headings/display | Headings are topic labels, not claims; the argument skeleton is not visible at a glance. | Use claim-based headings or a key line that shows the recommendation and its supporting branches. |

| Axis | Score | Note |
|---|---:|---|
| Top | 1 | Vague answer exists but is buried. |
| Same-kind groups | 1 | Production steps are same-kind; Issues and assessment mix causes, symptoms, capacity, and recommendation. |
| Order | 1 | Production uses time order; the rest is not an explicable argument order. |
| MECE | 0 | Clear gap, no corrective actions, and overlapping root-cause statements. |
| Display | 1 | Headings and numbering are visible, but the hierarchy is not readable as an argument. |

**Total: 4/10 — baseline workable**

1. Replace the topic-label opening with a one-sentence recommendation that states the corrective changes and the decision needed.  
2. Rebuild the body around 3–4 action branches that answer what will change, not what currently happens.  
3. Merge the repeated root-cause statements into one branch and attach symptoms as supports.  

If you want, I can rewrite it as a corrective-proposal memo.