Kestrel — stage 5, the memo

◈ 3 cards

The full case response in memo form, to the CFO: header, purpose line, a recommendation sentence that names the supplier dropped, the timing and the condition on Tundra Line, analysis by criterion with the matrix as Table 1, the conflict of interest inside the analysis and in next steps — written against R-memo and R-conflict, with the model after commit.

Stage 5 — the deliverable

Stages 1–4 are your analysis; the CFO reads none of them. He reads the memo, and the memo is marked on R-memo with R-conflict inside the ethical element (L10.6). Everything in the memo comes from the four stages you have written; nothing new is invented at stage 5 except the form. Below is the memo's shape for Kestrel with every rubric line labelled, and the few sentences that are fixed by the case; the full model appears after you commit.

The shape, labelled

MEMORANDUM
To:    Daniel Okafor, Chief Financial Officer, Kestrel Outdoor Co.
From:  <Your name>, Junior Analyst, Finance
Date:  27 February 2026
Re:    Apparel supplier consolidation — recommendation to drop Cedar & Co.

[header complete and specific — the Re line carries the position]

Purpose [in sentence one]: who asked (you, on 2 February), for what (which one of five apparel suppliers to drop, before the March orders), what this memo delivers.

Recommendation [one sentence, first]. The sentence must name three things: the supplier dropped, the timing, and the condition on Tundra Line with its date — end the Cedar & Co. relationship at the March order cycle, and retain Tundra Line on condition of remediation evidence by 31 March. A recommendation that names only the drop has left the audit unhandled; one that names only the condition has not answered the task.

Analysis [organised by criteria; qualitative and quantitative; assumptions stated]: a heading per criterion with its weight, a sentence per supplier under each, Table 1 — the matrix from L11.3 — in the section, the weighted totals, the sensitivity in a line (the sustainability weighting moves Tundra Line from 3.30 to 2.70 and does not move the drop), the margin dollars, the assumptions, and the exhibit cited as the source [sources cited].

The shortlist [the ethical issue, inside the analysis]: a short headed paragraph, inside the analysis, that states the conflict in one sentence as a fact about the source, names the value at stake (the independence of the recommendation — and, for the record, that conflicts of interest are the subject of CPA Ontario Code rule 210), proposes the proportionate action (disclosure — this paragraph — and recusal from decisions involving Cedar & Co.), in a respectful tone, with the next step it becomes. Five R-conflict lines in four sentences.

Next steps [who does what by when; first checkpoint]: the L11.3 list — approval and the minuted disclosure; notice to Cedar & Co. and the re-sourcing quotes with Lena recused; the written conditions to Tundra Line; the 31 March checkpoint with its consequence; the September review.

Appendix A [referenced]: margin-dollar calculation, the matrix working, the sensitivity tables. Two pages; headings; plain language; no first person beyond I recommend [objective, formal, scannable; 1–2 pages, error-free].

Two places the marks go

The conflict of interest earns marks in two places, and only two: inside the analysis, as a constraint on the shortlist's credibility, and in next steps, as the recusal with an owner. A closing paragraph headed Ethics earns neither. A private email to the CFO instead of the memo earns neither — the memo is the record, and the disclosure has to be on it.

Now write it

Assemble the memo from your four stages. Commit it; then read the model with the rubric beside it and grade the text you wrote, not the memo you meant to write.