I've written the memo to `output/pvm-note.md`, with the script's full figures in `output/pvm.json`. The script confirmed that prior year plus the three effects equals current year to the cent, in total and for every family and segment.

**FY2025 revenue was $11.2M, almost exactly FY2024's $11.2M: down ($5K), or (0.04%).** Behind that flat total, the three effects mostly cancel each other out:

| Effect | Amount |
| --- | --- |
| Quantity | ($395K) |
| Mix | $135K |
| Rate | $256K |

- **Quantity:** total cartons sold fell (3.5%), which cost ($395K).
- **Rate:** price changes added $256K. Paper added the most, $167K. Writing Instruments lost ($36K) and Desk Accessories lost ($44K) on price.
- **Segment shift:** this is the main story. Enterprise revenue fell ($749K), and ($627K) of that was mix. Mid-Market gained $362K and SMB gained $399K of mix, so sales moved from Enterprise to the smaller segments. Paper Enterprise alone lost ($300K) of mix.
- **By family:** Print Consumables grew most, adding $83K. Writing Instruments fell most, losing ($90K).

**Before the committee relies on this:**
- **Cartons hold different amounts across families.** All 18 rows use cartons, so the method treats them as one unit and adds them together. But a carton of paper and a carton of pens aren't the same thing. If the committee thinks of mix in revenue terms rather than cartons, the mix and quantity split between families will look different.
- **The data doesn't explain the causes.** It doesn't show why Enterprise units fell or why Paper prices rose. Deal-level or customer-level data would answer whether the price gain came from list-price increases or less discounting, and whether Enterprise lost customers or bought less per customer.

The memo uses the skill's required headings, so "rate" appears as "Price" and "quantity" as "Volume".