Detailed Equity Considerations for SERLO / Considérations détaillées en matière d’équité pour le SERLO

Introduction

This evergreen document has been developed collaboratively by Government of Canada Employment Equity (EE) Networks to provide a comprehensive and equity‑informed interpretation of the 14‑step Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off (SERLO) process established by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Its purpose is to support departments and agencies in carrying out SERLO exercises that meet all legislative and policy requirements while also aligning with best practices in equitable workforce management.

While the PSC prescribes the mandatory procedural steps for SERLO, EE Networks recognize that the context in which these decisions occur evolves constantly. Demographic patterns shift, labour‑market availability changes, accessibility obligations expand, and new understandings of systemic barriers emerge. This evergreen document therefore integrates updated analytical methods, robust risk‑mitigation controls, and strengthened documentation standards so that the guidance remains relevant, adaptable, and future‑proof across multiple SERLO cycles.

The guidance reflects the lived expertise and professional knowledge of EE Networks. Throughout all 14 steps, decisions should be transparent, defensible, and informed by strong evidence. They should also remain consistent with the requirements and intent of the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, and the Official Languages Act, while supporting the identification and removal of systemic barriers and upholding fairness, dignity, and respect for all employees.

This document begins with Step 1—Determining the Desired Current and Future State of the Organization—because inaccuracies or biases introduced at Step 1 shape the entire SERLO process and cannot be fully corrected later. Each subsequent step follows the same structure: clarifying PSC requirements, highlighting equity risks, and describing practical mitigation controls.

Legislative and Policy Framework

This step is grounded in several legislative and policy instruments, including section 64 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), section 22 of the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER), the PSC’s Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay-Off Guide, the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, the Official Languages Act, and the Workforce Adjustment Directive (WFAD). Together, these authorities govern the conditions under which a SERLO can be initiated and shape the obligations that apply to employers during restructuring.

---

1. What This Step Is

Step 1 establishes the operational basis for initiating a SERLO. It begins when the Deputy Head determines that the services of some, but not all, employees in a defined part of the organization are no longer required because of a lack of work, the discontinuance of a function, or an organizational restructuring authorized under PSEA section 64.

1.1 Determinations Required Before Any Assessment

Before employees can be assessed, the organization must determine what work will continue and what work will cease or be reduced in the future state. It must also specify which functions will be required, how many indeterminate positions will be needed to perform the ongoing work, and which knowledge, skills, experience, and language requirements will be necessary for those future-state positions.

1.2 Environmental Scan Requirements

The PSC Guide specifies that these decisions must be informed by an environmental scan that includes a workforce analysis, a skills‑gap analysis, and an examination of representation rates for designated Employment Equity groups in the affected area.

1.3 Structural Foundation Reminder

Because Step 1 establishes the foundation for everything that follows, early misinterpretations—especially concerning representation and labour‑market context—create distortions that later equity controls cannot fully correct.

---

2. Required Actors

2.1 Accountable Authority

The Deputy Head serves as the accountable authority for initiating SERLO under PSEA section 64.

2.2 Operational Lead

A delegated manager, operating under sub‑delegated staffing authority, leads the SERLO at the operational level.

2.3 Required Support Functions

A range of corporate support functions must contribute formally and provide documented input. These include HR Workforce Planning, HR Analytics, Employment Equity and Diversity and Inclusion units, Accessibility and Duty‑to‑Accommodate specialists, Official Languages advisors, Classification advisors, and Finance or Corporate Planning. Each function plays a specific role in ensuring the decision is evidence‑based, compliant, and well‑documented.

---

3. Mandatory Documentation — Step 1 Decision Record

A formal Step 1 Decision Record must be created and retained in the SERLO master file. This record must include several components.

3.1 Future State Rationale

The organization must describe the programs or services that will be discontinued, reduced, or restructured; identify the authority for the change (such as a Departmental Plan, Treasury Board decision, budget reduction, or mandate shift); specify the number of positions required in the future structure; and include an organizational chart of the future state.

3.2 Workforce Snapshot

The current-state overview must identify the total number of indeterminate employees in the affected area, describe their group‑and‑level distribution, show their geographic locations and official‑language profiles, and outline the representation rates for women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities.

3.3 Comparison Benchmarks

The record must list the departmental representation baseline, the official Workforce Availability (WFA) values used for comparison, the census year from which those values are drawn, and the definitions used for each designated group.

3.4 Skills Gap Analysis

The analysis must identify the skills required in the future state, outline the skills currently present, describe the gaps between them, and indicate the evidence source for each identified gap.

3.5 Risk and Mitigation Record

The record must also include an assessment of representation impacts, any availability‑sensitivity modelling completed, the justification for language requirements, a forecast of potential barriers, and confirmation that the required approvals have been obtained.

---

4. Structural Risk of Workforce Availability Reliance

Official Workforce Availability is derived from census data that is collected every five years, published with delays, sometimes affected by definitional changes, and often unable to capture rapid demographic growth. For visible minority groups in particular, recent labour‑market growth may significantly exceed earlier census benchmarks.

4.1 Resulting Risks

Apparent overrepresentation occurs when census-based availability is lower than current labour‑market availability, creating the false impression that representation exceeds expectations. False neutrality occurs when projected reductions appear compliant with census‑based benchmarks but nonetheless entrench underrepresentation compared to today’s labour market.

4.2 Compliance Context

The Employment Equity Act requires representation goals to reflect labour‑market availability. When availability benchmarks are outdated, relying solely on them can distort the interpretation of representation levels.

---

5. Required Workforce Availability Mitigation Controls

Although WFA remains the statutory benchmark, Step 1 must incorporate supplementary analysis to ensure accurate and equitable decision‑making.

5.1 Census Currency Disclosure

The Step 1 record must indicate the census year used, explain the time gap between census data and current workforce data, clarify whether definitions changed between census cycles, and confirm whether internal denominators align with census data. HR Analytics is responsible for this documentation.

5.2 Dual Benchmark Requirement

Before concluding that any group is overrepresented, representation must be tested against both official WFA and a growth‑adjusted sensitivity benchmark, with any discrepancies clearly documented.

5.3 Growth‑Adjusted Sensitivity Formula

Adjusted availability must be calculated by adding the difference between recent Labour Force Survey proportions and census proportions to the official WFA. For example, if visible‑minority WFA is 24 percent and the Labour Force Survey indicates 30 percent availability, the sensitivity benchmark becomes 30 percent and is used for modelling rather than statutory reporting.

5.4 Attainment Ratio Analysis

Organizations must calculate both the attainment ratio (internal representation divided by official WFA) and the sensitivity ratio (internal representation divided by adjusted availability). When the attainment ratio suggests overrepresentation but the sensitivity ratio suggests underrepresentation, the representation risk must be documented.

5.5 Future‑State Projection

Projected representation must be calculated using the formula for future-state representation, and the results compared to both official and adjusted availability benchmarks. If the projection falls below either benchmark, mitigation must be considered.

5.6 External Growth Differential

When the difference between Labour Force Survey availability and official WFA exceeds three to five percentage points, heightened caution must be applied before concluding that a group is overrepresented.

---

6. Equity Risk Areas at Step 1

6.1 Continuing Work Definition

When continuing work is defined using pathways historically available to some groups more than others, such definitions can disproportionately eliminate work performed by Indigenous employees, racialized employees, persons with disabilities, or employees recruited through targeted strategies. To mitigate this, organizations must document the operational necessity of each retained or eliminated function, the evidence supporting that necessity, the demographic concentration in those functions, and the rationale for eliminating any function disproportionately held by EE group members.

6.2 Opportunity Proxy Risk

Proxies such as acting experience, central‑agency experience, or executive‑level briefing exposure reflect unequal access to opportunity. These proxies must be replaced with competency‑based descriptions directly tied to the duties.

6.3 Geographic Consolidation Risk

Urban regions often have higher visible‑minority representation. Consolidation decisions must therefore be assessed for potential disproportionate demographic impact. HR Analytics must conduct this modelling before decisions are finalized.

6.4 Official Language Profile Escalation

Language profiles must reflect real duties rather than serve as indirect mechanisms to reduce headcount. The Official Languages function must confirm that language requirements are objective and defensible.

---

7. Barrier Forecast

Accessibility and DEI teams must assess potential barriers that may emerge from organizational changes. This includes determining whether remote‑work reductions may affect accommodated employees, whether consolidation disproportionately affects Indigenous or northern employees, or whether technology changes may impact employees requiring adaptive tools. Required mitigation measures must be documented.

---

8. Representation Floor Review

When representation falls below adjusted availability, departmental benchmarks, or occupational availability, the organization must explain why its decisions will not deepen underrepresentation. This requirement enables structural awareness without imposing quotas.

---

9. Required Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 2

The Step 1 file must contain official WFA benchmarks, census‑year disclosures, sensitivity‑modelling results, representation projections, explanations of discrepancies, functional justification tables, skills‑neutrality reviews, language‑profile justifications, and barrier forecasts. The Employment Equity function must provide a written validation confirming that representation risks were reviewed. The delegated manager must certify that future‑state decisions were informed by workforce analysis, representation benchmarking, availability‑sensitivity modelling, and documented mitigation actions.

---

10. Structural Importance of Step 1

Every subsequent step of SERLO depends on the decisions made in Step 1. How continuing work is defined, how many positions are retained, and what skills are considered essential—all of these decisions shape the SERLO process. If Step 1 relies on outdated availability measures or lacks sensitivity modelling, the process may comply with procedural requirements while entrenching structural inequities.

Understood — you want to keep the exact structure, headings, and bullets, but add clarifying sentences so each bullet becomes a complete, readable idea, just like the Step 1 rewrite I did earlier.

Here is STEP 2 rewritten in the same style, with all original bullets preserved, but each one expanded into full, clear sentences. Nothing has been removed or altered for meaning.

---

STEP 2 — Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization

---

Legislative and Policy Basis

Why this step exists

Under PSEA s.64(1), employees may be laid off when their services are no longer required due to a lack of work, the discontinuance of a function, or the transfer of work. This establishes the legal authority for identifying areas of the organization where work is ending or significantly changing.

Under PSEA s.64(2), when only some employees in any part of the organization may be laid off, the employer must apply the SERLO process as outlined in the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER). This requirement ensures fairness, consistency, and transparency for all employees who may be affected.

The PSC Guide (Step 2) further requires delegated managers, supported by HR specialists, to first determine the affected part(s) of the organization and to document specific scope elements. This ensures the SERLO begins with a clearly defined and defensible boundary.

Additionally, WFAD obligations depend on the number of affected employees in the same group and level within the same work unit. Because voluntary departure programs and other WFA supports are triggered by these counts, Step 2 directly shapes which obligations apply.

Official Guidance (Primary Reference)

The authoritative reference for this step is the Public Service Commission’s guide, Selection of employees for retention or lay-off: Guide for managers and human resources specialists (Step 2), which provides the operational requirements for determining affected organizational parts.

---

1. What This Step Is

1.1 Purpose of Step 2

Step 2 formally defines the “affected part(s) of the organization” for the workforce adjustment and for any subsequent SERLO. Doing so establishes the scope boundary that determines fairness, comparability, and consistency for all employees included in the SERLO. The scope also determines how WFAD obligations apply and ensures the same rules and supports are applied equally to all employees in the affected area.

1.2 What the Scope Determines

The scope identifies which organizational units—such as work units, sections, divisions, or directorates—are affected. It also clarifies whether the impacted area is local, regional, or national in nature. Finally, the scope identifies which programs or types of work fall within the identified area. These decisions directly determine which positions and employees will later be included in the SERLO pool.

1.3 PSC Requirements for Step 2

The PSC Guide requires delegated managers, with HR support, to identify the specific sections, divisions, or directorates that make up the affected part(s). They must also identify the applicable geographic area—local, regional, or national—and must specify the program(s) or type(s) of work performed in each affected part. These requirements ensure the scope reflects the work itself rather than the individuals occupying positions.

1.4 Why This Step Matters for Equity

The decisions made in Step 2 determine who is placed at risk. When scope is defined too narrowly, inconsistently, or around incumbents rather than the work performed, it may create avoidable inequity and may disproportionately affect Employment Equity groups. For this reason, Step 2 is one of the most sensitive SERLO steps from an equity perspective.

---

2. Who Completes This Step

2.1 Accountable Decision-Maker

The delegated manager, acting under delegated staffing authority, is responsible for making the final determination of the affected part(s) of the organization.

2.2 Required Organizational Support

A designated HR specialist—typically with expertise in workforce adjustment, staffing, classification, and documentation—must support the delegated manager in validating and recording the scope.

2.3 Mandatory Equity and Compliance Engagement

Several functional areas must be engaged to ensure the resulting record is complete and defensible. These include Employment Equity or IDEAA/Anti‑Racism, HR Analytics, Accessibility and Duty‑to‑Accommodate specialists, Official Languages advisors, Labour Relations, Corporate Planning or Finance, and Classification. Each function contributes evidence, risk assessments, or compliance validations needed to confirm that the scope is fair and legally sound.

---

3. Mandatory Outputs and Documentation

A Step 2 Scope Determination Record must be created and preserved in the SERLO file. It must be sufficiently clear that an independent reviewer can understand the rationale and logic behind the defined scope.

A. Scope Definition (PSC Minimum Requirements)

1. Organizational Unit Definition

The record must identify the affected organizational units, including the specific sections, divisions, or directorates involved. This step ensures clarity about which work functions fall under the SERLO.

2. Geographic Boundary

The record must state whether the affected scope is local, regional, or national. This clarifies whether the same type of work is performed in multiple geographic areas and ensures boundaries are not defined arbitrarily.

3. Work Boundary

The record must specify the programs or types of work performed in each affected part. This helps establish a work‑based rationale rather than a person‑based boundary.

---

B. Scope Rationale (Required for Equity and Defensibility)

The rationale must explain why the selected scope accurately reflects the work being reduced, discontinued, or transferred. It must also explain why the scope is neither broader nor narrower than necessary. The record must document whether similar work exists in other organizational units and why such work is included or excluded, as required by the PSC. Finally, the rationale must show alignment with decisions documented in the Step 1 Future State Record.

---

C. Scope Map and Position Linkage

The record must include or reference the current organizational chart, the future‑state organizational chart, and a list of the included work units (for example, “Software Development” or “Client Services”). For each unit, the record should provide a short description of the type of work conducted.

---

D. Equity Impact Summary (Mandatory Step 2 Control)

An equity analysis must accompany the scope determination. This analysis includes a representation snapshot for the proposed scope and comparisons to the departmental baseline, the official WFA benchmark, and the Step 1 sensitivity benchmark. The record must also indicate whether the scope concentrates risk in units where EE group representation is significantly higher.

---

E. Scope Change Control

If the defined scope changes at any later stage, the file must document what changed, why it changed, who approved the change, how employees and bargaining agents were informed, and the results of an updated equity impact assessment. This ensures transparency and prevents scope manipulation.

---

4. What Can Go Wrong at Step 2 (Equity Risks)

Risk 1 — Scope Defined Around Incumbents Rather Than Work

For example, if the affected part is defined as a single team with higher EE representation while similar work exists elsewhere, the result may be inequitable.

Risk 2 — Inconsistent Scope Across Similar Work

If two units perform the same duties but only one is included, employees may experience unequal treatment, leading to challenges.

Risk 3 — Geographic Boundary Creates Adverse Impact

Defining a local scope when the work is performed nationally may disproportionately affect Indigenous employees, visible minorities, or persons with disabilities.

Risk 4 — Scope Definition Manipulates WFAD Triggers

Scope can be misdrawn to avoid voluntary departure program requirements or to limit employee access to WFAD supports.

Risk 5 — Outdated WFA Distorts Scope Decisions

Using outdated availability benchmarks can inaccurately suggest overrepresentation and justify a narrower scope.

---

5. Mitigations (Specific, Operational, Auditable)

Mitigation Package 1 — Work-Based Scope Test (Mandatory)

Owner: HR Specialist (process), Delegated Manager (accountable), Classification (support)

The record must include a clear statement linking the scope to the work performed, the evidence supporting that linkage (such as business plans or approved reorganization documents), and a documented check confirming whether similar work exists elsewhere. The auditor must be able to confirm the scope is based on work—not on employees.

---

Mitigation Package 2 — Scope Equity Impact Assessment (Mandatory)

Owner: HR Analytics + Employment Equity

The analysis must include a representation snapshot, a scope concentration test, and the application of Step 1 WFA sensitivity rules. The record must include the results, a plain‑language risk statement, and a statement regarding any mitigation decisions.

---

Mitigation Package 3 — Geographic Boundary Fairness Controls

Owner: HR Specialist + Employment Equity + Accessibility

Documentation must explain why a broader boundary is not appropriate, show regional representation distributions, describe any forecasted barriers related to communication or accommodation, and outline how consistent access to information will be ensured across locations.

---

Mitigation Package 4 — WFAD Trigger Awareness and Consistency

Owner: Labour Relations + HR WFA Advisor

The record must include the number of affected employees by group and level, a statement indicating whether a voluntary departure program may be required, and a confirmation that scope boundaries were not selected to avoid WFAD obligations.

---

Mitigation Package 5 — Approval and Governance Sign-Off

Owner: Delegated Manager

Written confirmation from HR, Employment Equity, Accessibility, and Labour Relations must be collected to demonstrate that the scope meets PSC requirements, aligns with Step 1, and has undergone appropriate review.

---

6. Minimum “Done” Criteria Before Proceeding to Step 3

Step 2 is complete only when the SERLO file includes a full Scope Determination Record covering organizational units, geography, and work boundaries; a written rationale linked to Step 1; verification of whether similar work exists elsewhere; a representation snapshot and concentration analysis; consideration of WFA currency and sensitivity benchmarks; WFAD trigger analysis; and all necessary sign‑offs.

If any of these components are missing, Step 3 begins with a structurally weak foundation, elevating risks related to procedural fairness and equity impacts.

---

STEP 3 — Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees

(Comprehensive Version with Equity and Compliance Controls — bullets rewritten as sentences)

---

Legislative and Policy Framework

The legal and policy basis for Step 3 includes PSEA sections 64 and 65, PSER section 22, and the PSC’s Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off Guide. This step must also align with the Workforce Adjustment Directive (WFAD), the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, and the Official Languages Act.

Primary operational reference: Public Service Commission — Selection of employees for retention or lay‑off: Guide for managers and human resources specialists.

---

1. What This Step Is

Step 3 identifies the specific positions within the affected part that may be reduced, the indeterminate employees who substantively occupy those positions, and the SERLO pool(s) of employees who must be compared during selection. At this point, the abstract “affected part” becomes a concrete group‑and‑level pool with named incumbents.

PSC Requirements

According to the PSC Guide, the SERLO pool must include only indeterminate employees who occupy positions on a substantive basis. Employees who are temporarily absent—for example on leave, assignment, secondment, or Interchange Canada—must still be included if they substantively hold a position in the affected part. By contrast, term employees, casual workers, students, and temporary help are not included in a SERLO conducted under the PSER.

Structural Importance

Because Step 3 defines who will be compared, errors here will distort the entire SERLO process. A flawed pool definition introduces structural inequity that downstream steps (Steps 4–14) cannot correct.

---

2. What Must Be Identified

The delegated manager must complete this step with HR specialist support to ensure accuracy and compliance.

A. Positions

For each affected part, the organization must identify all positions at the same occupational group and level; it must determine which positions perform similar duties; and it must confirm that identified positions align to the continuing or reduced work articulated in Step 1. The PSC clarifies that generic job descriptions do not, by themselves, establish similarity; rather, objective evidence of similar duties is required.

B. Employees

The pool must include all indeterminate employees who substantively occupy the identified positions, including employees on leave (such as parental, medical, disability, or Indigenous cultural leave), employees acting elsewhere but whose substantive position is in scope, and employees on Interchange Canada or secondment whose substantive position is in scope. The pool must exclude term employees, casual workers, students, and temporary help because these categories are not part of SERLO under the PSER.

---

3. Required Actors

Accountable

The Delegated Manager is accountable for the accuracy and defensibility of the pool.

Mandatory Support

The process requires support from an HR Staffing Advisor; a Classification advisor; HR Systems / Pay and Position Data specialists; Labour Relations; Employment Equity; and Accessibility advisors to ensure data accuracy, compliance, and barrier‑free process access.

---

4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 3 File Requirements

The SERLO file must contain the following records.

A. Position Identification Record

For each position in scope, the record must state the position number, group and level, location, language profile, and reporting relationship, along with the current incumbent and whether the position is encumbered or vacant.

B. Duty Similarity Analysis

For each position considered part of the pool, the analysis must describe the core duties, provide a comparison with other positions at the same group and level, and articulate a rationale for inclusion or exclusion. This analysis cannot rely solely on job titles; it must reference the actual work performed.

C. Employee Inclusion Log

For each indeterminate employee substantively occupying a position, the log must record the employee’s name, the substantive position number, the current status (for example, on leave, acting, or on assignment), the confirmation of inclusion in the pool, and the date and method used to notify the employee.

D. On‑Leave Inclusion Log

The file must separately track employees on leave by documenting the type of leave, the confirmation of contact, and the confirmation that accommodations and access to information were provided on an equal basis.

---

5. Equity Risks at Step 3

Risk 1 — Inconsistent Interpretation of “Similar Duties.” A narrow or uneven application of “similar duties” may isolate teams with high EE representation or those with regional or outreach‑focused functions, thereby creating disproportionate risk.

Risk 2 — Exclusion of Employees on Leave. Employees on parental, disability, long‑term medical, or Indigenous cultural leave may be disadvantaged if communication is delayed or incomplete.

Risk 3 — Language or Location Data Errors. Incorrect official‑language profiles or location entries may place employees in the wrong pool or exclude them improperly.

Risk 4 — Acting Assignment Distortion. Two frequent errors are treating acting incumbents as substantive holders and overlooking substantive incumbents who are acting elsewhere.

Risk 5 — Occupational Clustering. If EE groups are clustered in certain occupational streams, inconsistent grouping or inclusion/exclusion of similar work units without rationale may increase adverse impact.

---

6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations

Mitigation 1 — Objective Duty Similarity Test

Owner: HR Staffing + Delegated Manager

The organization must compare duties using official work descriptions and task inventories, identify core functions, identify material operational differences, and document the grouping rationale so that inclusion and exclusion decisions are transparent and auditable.

Mitigation 2 — Cross‑Unit Similar Work Check

Owner: HR Staffing

The record must confirm whether similar work exists elsewhere in the affected part and must provide a clear rationale for either including or excluding that work from the pool.

Mitigation 3 — Data Validation Control

Owner: HR Systems + Classification

For each position, the organization must validate the substantive incumbent, tenure, group and level, language profile, location, and reporting structure to eliminate data errors before finalizing the pool.

Mitigation 4 — Leave Equity Control

Owner: HR Advisor + Accessibility

The file must show that all substantive incumbents on leave are included, that communication was timely, and that any accessibility needs were addressed to provide equal process access.

Mitigation 5 — Representation Pool Snapshot

Owner: HR Analytics + Employment Equity

For each pool, the organization must calculate representation rates, compare them to Step 1 projections, and compare them to WFA and the sensitivity benchmark, documenting any disproportionate impact identified.

Mitigation 6 — Acting Assignment Clarification

Owner: HR Staffing

The organization must ensure that acting incumbents are not treated as substantive and that substantive incumbents are included even when they are temporarily acting elsewhere.

---

7. How to Operationalize the Similar Duties Analysis

A Similar Duties Matrix must be included in the file. This matrix lists, for each position, the position number, the group and level, the core duties, any unique duties, whether the position is included in the pool (Y/N), and the rationale for the inclusion or exclusion. This matrix provides transparency and auditability for grouping decisions.

---

8. Governance Sign‑Off

Before Step 4 can begin, the file must contain the complete list of positions, the documented rationale for the pool structure, the employee inclusion log, the on‑leave inclusion log, validated position and incumbent data, and the representation snapshot. The file must also include delegated manager approval, HR specialist confirmation, and Employment Equity validation to confirm compliance and equity oversight.

---

9. Structural Importance of Step 3

Step 3 determines who will be compared for retention. If pools are too narrow, if similar work is excluded, if leave cases are mishandled, or if data errors are left uncorrected, procedural fairness is compromised and downstream equity safeguards cannot repair the error. Equitable SERLO requires structural neutrality at the pool‑definition stage.

---

If you’d like, I can now insert this revised Step 3 into your Word manual, or proceed to Step 4 using the same bullet‑to‑sentence clarity approach.