I've written the memo to `output/pvm-note.md`, with the script's full figures in `output/pvm.json`. The split reconciles to the cent in total and for every product family and customer segment. The memo uses "Price" for the rate effect and "Volume" for the quantity effect.

**Headline:** FY2025 revenue was $11,238K against $11,243K in FY2024, a change of ($5K), or (0.04%). Total revenue was almost flat, but the three effects behind it were large:

| Step | Amount |
| --- | --- |
| FY2024 | $11,243K |
| Volume | ($395K) |
| Mix | $135K |
| Price | $256K |
| FY2025 | $11,238K |

Units fell (3.5%), from 176,462 to 170,256 cartons. Price and mix made up for most of that drop.

**Main points for the pricing committee:**
- **By segment, the effect is mainly mix:** Enterprise lost ($749K), of which mix was ($627K). SMB added $409K and Mid-Market added $335K, mostly from mix. Units moved from Enterprise to the smaller segments.
- **Paper had the largest price effect:** $167K, led by Paper Mid-Market at $75K. Paper Enterprise also had the largest negative mix effect, at ($300K).
- **Two families lost on price:** Writing Instruments fell ($90K) and was negative on all three effects. Desk Accessories had the largest price drag, at ($44K).

The data shows how much each effect contributed but not why prices moved. To tell list-price changes from discounting, the committee would need Enterprise contract and discount data.

The figures are rounded to thousands, so the bridge and some family rows don't add exactly; the memo's data notes say this. All rows were in cartons, so it was valid to add units across families.