A couple of nice issues in this memo that I'd like to spotlight a bit. First, in a focus group the interviewer/moderator(s) definitely needs to be considered one of the participants. This is true as well in an individual interview, but oftentimes the interviewer's presence in the one-on-one interview can be ignored w/out much analytic impact. That is not the case in a focus group where the moderator role always needs to be considered. Similarly, the FG moderator may want to adopt a more "fixed" style. There are so many uncontrollable aspects to the FG already that it is usually ok to be a bit more focused or controlled than in other forms of qualitative data collection. in short, this is an arena of qualitative research where the quantitative imperative of "non-reactivity" can make good sense.
A final thought on the memo is that this memo is really a collection of thoughts and reactions -- documenting ideas and processes -- more than an attempt at pulling out specific codes or analytical themes. That's fine. In the context of a qualitative team, I'm thinking that it is worth pointing out that this kind of memo might then be handed off to other team members to continue to elaborate and build on, e.g. to move from these series of thoughts/reactions and some codes to a new draft that has more fully-developed codes. The point is: different analysts may have different strengths, preferences, or even availability and it is always good to consider whether and when work can be handed from one team person to another. Nice work!