Raw

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

Annotated text

```text
⊕ Subject: Period Graph Books [topic label; no answer to the request for corrective proposals]
○ Since Period 5, Financial Analysis has been responsible for producing four graph-presentation books previously handled by Corporate Planning. [situation]
⊕ This memo describes issues that appeared after the transfer. [purpose statement; no question or answer]

●⚠✂ Production [current-state mechanics; wrong kind for a corrective-proposal memo]
○ 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 [mixed kinds: cause, example, symptoms]
⊗ The transfer inserted another person into an already fragmented process. [cause; overlaps with “fragmented process” below]
⊗ Divisional staff and three corporate departments participate, and the same information may be entered into computer systems three times. [overlaps with the one-book flow below]
○ 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. [example/evidence]
⚠ 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. [symptom list; different kind from cause/example]

●⚠ Overall assessment [mixed diagnosis, recommendation, and capacity constraint]
○ Most problems arise from a cumbersome fragmented process. [diagnosis]
⊗ No one controls the data from beginning to end, responsibility is unclear, and errors can fall between stages. [overlaps with fragmented-process point]
↑ The production process badly needs streamlining, both for each book and for common calculations. [vague recommendation; should become the specific top answer]
↑ The current team cannot manage the required changes as well as ongoing production. [buried constraint; belongs in the decision/ask]
⊕ Could we discuss how best to proceed? [gap: no decision, options, owner, or date]
```

Findings

| # | Location | Violation | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Subject and opening | Top does not answer: the first line is a topic label, and the opening states purpose rather than the corrective proposal management asked for. | Make the first line a one-sentence answer naming the corrective actions to be taken. |
| 2 | Overall assessment | Buried logic: the only recommendation is vague (“badly needs streamlining”) and sits near the end. | Promote the recommendation to the top and make it specific enough to approve. |
| 3 | Issues | Mixed kinds: cause, participation detail, one-book example, and symptom list are grouped together. | Split into same-kind groups such as root causes, observed symptoms, and supporting examples. |
| 4 | Production | Right kind, wrong kind: current-state process steps are presented as a main section although the reader needs corrective actions. | Move the process description down as support or to an appendix under the relevant cause or recommendation. |
| 5 | Issues and Overall assessment | MECE overlap: fragmented process, lack of control, unclear responsibility, and repeated entry express the same defect several times. | Give each root cause one home and attach repeated details as supports under it. |
| 6 | Closing ask | Gap: “discuss how best to proceed” requests conversation, not a decision; the reader’s question is not closed. | Add an explicit decision ask with options, recommendation, owner, and date. |
| 7 | Final paragraph | Buried logic: the team-capacity constraint is hidden at the end although it affects feasibility and the ask. | Surface the capacity constraint as a separate condition or branch that shapes the decision. |

Score

| Axis | Score | Rationale |
|---|---:|---|
| Top | 1 | A vague answer exists, but it is buried and not actionable. |
| Same-kind groups | 1 | Production steps are same-kind, but Issues and Overall assessment mix kinds. |
| Order | 1 | The production steps have time order; the other sections’ order is not clearly explicable. |
| MECE | 0 | Clear overlaps and a missing decision/action category. |
| Display | 1 | Headings and numbering exist, but the hierarchy does not show an answer-first skeleton. |

Total: 4/10 — baseline workable.

Three fixes that buy the most

1. Open with a one-sentence answer that names the corrective actions management should approve.  
2. Rebuild the first-level groups as same-kind actions or changes, moving current-state process detail down as support.  
3. End with a specific decision ask: options, recommendation, owner, date, and any resource implication.  

Next: I can run `write` to restructure it if you want.