miforståelse

Eirik, you seem to have induced typo here, it should be: miSforståelse.
Also, I can't find anything about "ja" in such context (google/dictionaries). There is something with "Ja, det var ja", but I think it might be the very common JO in question here? Sorry for the English, I started this way, and now I can't be bothered to find the translation for "induced", so all goes like this... :)

Oops, sorry, yes it should be "misforståelse" of course.

This kinda works: "Det var, ja, en misforståelse fra først til sist."

"ja" as a kind of rhetorical device. Emphasizes the statement kinda.
It's very oral of course and wouldn't be used in, say, a financial report.

thanks

But the commas are indispensible. So I suggest changing it to:

"Det var, ja, en misforståelse fra først til sist."

The "ja" kan only work as an interjection.

I'm not sure what you meant by "induced" by the way - the closest word phonetically I can think of is "introduced." Introduced is often used in this manner.

Induced is used like, "To induce someone to do something" which simply means, "to cause/make someone to do something"

Well, you caused Alexander to transfer your typo :)

Ohh, yes that makes perfect sense of course :)

danepo,

That would without the commas. It just depends on what the author meant to convey.
It would be a more common sense.

"Det var jo en misforståelse fra først til sist."