WEEK FOUR FINAL PROJECT REVISIONS FOR WORD DOC AND POWERPOINT

What I need revised

1. Expand the paper to meet the required 10–15 pages of actual body content. Do not add filler; expand the research, analysis, comparisons, and application of SCM concepts. 
2. Verify every factual and numerical claim using credible sources. Several figures currently have no identifiable source, including the $20B+ market size,  the 35%/20%/15%/10%/10%/10% cost breakdown,  and the 8–12% projected growth rate.  If a credible source cannot be found for a number, it should be removed or replaced—not simply reworded. 
3. Add proper APA 7 in-text citations throughout. The paper currently contains numerous market, regulatory, financial, company, technology, and industry claims without citations. Every outside fact needs to be traceable to a legitimate source. 
4. Verify and rebuild the References page. The current reference list is too limited and several entries are incomplete or generic.  Use credible primary sources when possible, including actual annual reports, FDA/WHO guidance, reputable industry/market research, and appropriate academic sources. 
5. Substantially strengthen the analysis. The SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces, industry trends, financial health, and company comparisons should explain why the evidence matters, rather than primarily listing facts. Financial-health ratings such as "Excellent" and "Strong" need defined criteria and supporting financial data. 
6. Make the Sourcing Recommendation one of the strongest sections. The paper should clearly compare McKesson, UPS Healthcare, and DHL using defined criteria and explain which supplier should be selected for which needs and why. This is especially important because the Sourcing Recommendation is the highest-weighted section of the rubric. 
7. Revise the PowerPoint after the paper is corrected. The presentation must match the final research. Add citations to slides containing statistics, forecasts, financial figures, regulatory information, and company-specific claims. Add a References slide at the end. The current PowerPoint repeats several unsupported figures from the paper, including the 8–12% forecast.  
8. Preserve original student analysis and academic integrity. Grammarly flagged a significant amount of the current paper as potentially AI-patterned. An AI detector alone does not prove AI authorship, so the goal is not to "humanize" the paper to beat an AI detector. The goal is to make sure every section is properly researched, cited, analytically developed, and written in a way the team can understand and defend. The professor specifically states that the work must represent the students' original ideas and work.  

Most importantly: please use the attached SCM 640 Final Project Audit & Correction Guide as the working checklist. The objective is not simply to polish the existing paper. It is to bring both the report and presentation up to the "Excellent" level of the professor's rubric, while ensuring that every source, statistic, and recommendation can be verified and defended.