AT TARGET scenario (one store)
| Line | % | $/mo |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 100% | $125,000 |
| Food Cost | 30% | $37,500 |
| Labor | 28% | $35,000 |
| Prime Cost | 58% | $72,500 |
| Occupancy + other ops | 35% | $43,750 |
| Net Profit | 7% | $8,750 |
Annual net profit per store at target: ~$105,000
Ember: Red-Flags Audit
Twelve-month review of operating data across 4 locations, with a receipt-level deep dive on April 14–May 11, 2026. Surfacing the patterns that warrant owner-level attention before they compound.
Owner Summary
Across a twelve-month review of Ember's operating data, the clearest signal isn't any single incident. It's the distance between what Ember should be making and what the recent pace shows, and the fact that most of the patterns behind it repeat month after month.
- Vendor pricing gap (~$4,800/mo): systemic across Stores B, C, and D. Store A is the benchmark. Stores B, C, and D are paying above that benchmark on key Sysco items, with Store C carrying the highest price-variance leakage.
- Store C discount rate 5.8% (~$2,125/mo): behavioral pattern risk. Store C carries the portfolio's highest discount rate at 5.8%, above your 4.1% target, with 47 manager-override comps and no POS-enforced approval rule.
- Weekday labor overage, Stores A+B (~$3,100/mo). The average weekly weekday bridge shows ~$3,875 of actual labor vs. a ~$3,100 target, leaving ~$775 of overage per week; over four weeks, that becomes ~$3,100/mo.
- Store D inventory shrinkage gap (~$1,735/mo, growing). The gap is growing rather than shrinking, with the latest reconciliation showing a shortfall that needs immediate manager review.
- Store B after-hours voids: control/theft risk (~$690 quantified, exposure unknown). Store B has 35 after-hours voids concentrated in two employee IDs, so the headline issue is a possible control issue, not just dollars.
The money isn't disappearing in one place; it's leaking across five operating patterns. At industry-consistent targets a typical Ember store nets roughly $8,750/month. Store C, the clearest underperformer, is closer to $2,500. That is a ~$6,250 monthly Store C gap, about $75,000 a year, and across all four locations the five patterns below trace to roughly $12,450 a month in monthly leakage.
How This Analysis Was Built
A short note on where the numbers come from and how confident each finding is, so you can weigh the report the way you would weigh a trusted manager's read.
This audit draws on five operating systems: Toast POS (sales, voids, discounts, and comps by employee), 7shifts labor and scheduling (scheduled vs. actual hours and cover counts), supplier invoices (five vendors, 42 invoices, priced SKU-by-SKU), MarketMan inventory (theoretical vs. physical counts), and third-party delivery statements (DoorDash, UberEats). The review ingests a trailing twelve months of POS and labor data per location, plus recent supplier invoices, inventory counts, and delivery-platform statements. The twelve-month scan identifies which patterns are chronic and which are new; the four-week window of April 14–May 11, 2026 then receives receipt-level attention, set against each location's trailing-twelve-month and same-period-prior-year baselines.
Findings are graded by cross-location internal benchmarking: for each metric, the strongest-performing location sets the target the others are measured against (Store A is the price and labor benchmark here). Where a location is structurally non-comparable, the fallback is its own history. To separate seasonal swings from operating drift, each location is also compared against the same period one year earlier, so a slow April reads as a slow April rather than a new problem.
Every finding below carries a confidence tier so you know how hard to lean on it.
HIGH confidence: complete data for the category and period, with corroborating context confirmed during the review.
MEDIUM confidence: complete data without operator-confirmed context, or partial data with strong corroborating context. The analytical reasoning is shown so you can evaluate the finding yourself.
MEDIUM confidence: complete data without operator-confirmed context, or partial data with strong corroborating context. The analytical reasoning is shown so you can evaluate the finding yourself.
ADC's framework also carries a LOW tier, weighted at 50% toward any performance-guarantee threshold, but no LOW-confidence findings appear in this report; the sample is held to HIGH and MEDIUM findings only. Most findings here are HIGH confidence, three are MEDIUM, and each MEDIUM finding states what would move it to HIGH.
What this analysis does not cover: anything outside the data provided. Qualitative factors such as a new competitor, nearby construction, weather, or a short-staffed week are not captured unless they surfaced in the numbers, and any finding that needed operator context we did not have was held back rather than guessed. As with any first pass, figures are directional until validated against source systems; ADC surfaces operating patterns, it is not a formal financial or compliance audit.
The Profit Gap By Store
Target profit per store
~$8,750 / mo net
~$105K / yr
Store C profit pace
~$2,500 / mo net
~$30K / yr
Store C gap
~$6,250 / mo
~$75,000 / yr
Store C is shown because it carries the largest store-level gap. The current performance table below adds Stores A, B, and D so the Store C number has context. Across all four Ember locations the five red flags below trace to roughly $12,450/month in monthly leakage, or 2.5% of the $498,000 monthly portfolio.
Assumes $125,000 per-store monthly revenue.
Store C CURRENT four-week performance
| Line | % | $/mo |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 100% | $125,000 |
| Food Cost | 33% | $41,250 |
| Labor | 30% | $37,500 |
| Prime Cost | 63% | $78,750 |
| Occupancy + other ops | 35% | $43,750 |
| Net Profit | 2% | $2,500 |
Store C annual net profit at current leakage rate: ~$30,000
Current four-week performance by store
| Store | Revenue | Food Cost | Labor | Prime Cost | Other Ops | Net Profit | Gap to 7% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Store A | $128,000 | 30.0% / $38,400 | 28.0% / $35,840 | 58.0% / $74,240 | 35.0% / $44,800 | 7.0% / $8,960 | $0 |
| Store B | $123,000 | 31.0% / $38,130 | 29.0% / $35,670 | 60.0% / $73,800 | 35.0% / $43,050 | 5.0% / $6,150 | ~$2,460 |
| Store C | $125,000 | 33.0% / $41,250 | 30.0% / $37,500 | 63.0% / $78,750 | 35.0% / $43,750 | 2.0% / $2,500 | ~$6,250 |
| Store D | $122,000 | 31.5% / $38,430 | 29.5% / $35,990 | 61.0% / $74,420 | 35.0% / $42,700 | 4.0% / $4,880 | ~$3,660 |
| Portfolio | $498,000 | ~$22,490 | ~$12,400 |
Math check: 7% target profit on $498,000 is $34,860. Current store-level profit above totals ~$22,490, leaving a portfolio gap of ~$12,400 before rounding.
Identified monthly leakage
Leakage by red flag
| Flag | Location | Monthly Leakage |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor pricing gap (price-variance leakage) | Stores B + C + D | ~$4,800 |
| Store C excess discounts (5.8% vs 4.1%) | Store C | ~$2,125 |
| Weekday labor overage (35% vs 28%) | Stores A + B | ~$3,100 |
| Inventory shrinkage gap | Store D | ~$1,735 |
| After-hours void control/theft risk | Store B | ~$690 |
| Total identified | ~$12,450/mo (~$149K/yr) |
The ~$12,450 is the monthly leakage tied to the five red flags across all four locations. Store C carries the largest store-level gap at roughly $6,250/mo; Stores B and D are smaller gaps, and Store A is the internal benchmark.
Methodology: HIGH confidence. Store-level P&L reconstructed from complete POS sales and reconciled labor and invoice data for all four locations, benchmarked against the 7% net-profit operating target and the strongest-performing location. The store figures reconcile to the portfolio total shown in the math-check lines above.
Your Operating Targets
These are your working operating targets: thresholds for deciding where to investigate first, not accounting standards. Prime-cost guidance follows Baker Tilly (> 65% is structurally hard to profit from). Food and labor context reflects National Restaurant Association (NRA) 2024 operator data, which the NRA itself notes is descriptive, not a goal. Discount, void, and waste targets are your working thresholds from field experience.
| Metric | Your Target | Watch | Red Flag | Industry context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Cost % | ≤ 30% | 31–33% | > 33% | NRA 2024 actuals typically ~31–32% |
| Labor % | ≤ 28% | 29–32% | > 32% | Many casual operators ran 30%+ in 2024 (NRA) |
| Prime Cost % | ≤ 60% | 61–64% | > 65% | Baker Tilly: > 65% structurally hard to profit |
| Discount / Comp rate | ≤ 4.1% | 4.2–5.8% | > 5.8% | Your working target |
| Void value | < 1% of sales | 1–2% | > 2% | Your working target |
| Food waste | < 10% of food cost | 10–14% | > 15% | Your working target |
| Net profit | 5–7% | 2–4% | < 2% | Full-service casual typically 3–5% |
Sources: Baker Tilly prime-cost guidance; NRA 2024 restaurant operations data.
Top 5 Red Flags
Vendor pricing ranks first because it is the largest price-variance leakage bucket and touches Stores B, C, and D. Discounting ranks second because Store C is the clearest behavior-policy outlier. Labor follows because the overage repeats across soft weekdays; shrinkage and void control risk follow through inventory and POS review.
01
RED FLAG
Vendor pricing gap (~$4,800/mo): systemic across Stores B, C, and D
Store A has the lowest prices, and will be the benchmark. Stores B, C, and D are paying above that benchmark on key Sysco items. The figures below are price-variance leakage dollars, not total item cost or total food cost. Current prices are confirmed in the recent invoice window; the creep timeline requires last year's invoices from the vendor portal.
Price variance vs. Store A benchmark: Sysco, Apr 1–May 11
| Item | Store A Benchmark | Store B Gap | Store C Gap | Store D Gap | Monthly Qty / Store | Portfolio Price-Variance Leakage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80/20 ground beef (lb) | $4.12 | +$0.26/lb | +$0.66/lb | +$0.08/lb | 1,900 lb | ~$1,900/mo |
| Chicken thighs (lb) | $2.89 | +$0.23/lb | +$0.58/lb | +$0.12/lb | 1,700 lb | ~$1,581/mo |
| Roma tomatoes (case) | $22.00 | $0.00/case | +$4.50/case | $0.00/case | 160 cases | ~$720/mo |
| Salmon fillet (lb) | $8.40 | $0.00/lb | +$0.75/lb | +$0.15/lb | 667 lb | ~$600/mo |
| Total | ~$4,800/mo |
Benchmark callout: Actual: Stores B, C, and D are paying above Store A's benchmark on key items. Your target: consolidated pricing across all locations on the shared account.
Monthly leakage: ~$4,800 price-variance leakage
Methodology: MEDIUM confidence. Unit pricing compared SKU-by-SKU across all four locations on the shared Sysco account, with Store A's prices as the internal benchmark. Confidence is medium because several store invoices arrived as scanned PDFs requiring manual line-item entry, so a small number of SKUs beyond the four shown are not yet cross-checked.
02
RED FLAG
Store C discount rate 5.8% (~$2,125/mo): behavioral pattern risk
Store C excess over target by 1.7%. Store C is the clear portfolio outlier. No POS-enforced approval rule or written comp policy was found. The trailing twelve months show Store C at or above the 4.1% target in ten of the last twelve months, and rising: drift, not a one-off.
Store-Level Discount Breakdown
| Store | Discount Rate | Monthly Gross Sales | Monthly Discounts Given |
|---|---|---|---|
| Store A (Downtown) | 4.0% | $128,000 | $5,120 |
| Store B (Midtown) | 4.0% | $123,000 | $4,920 |
| Store D (Northside) | 4.1% | $122,000 | $5,002 |
| Store C (Eastside) | 5.8% | $125,000 | $7,250 |
| Your target | 4.1% | n/a | $5,125 |
POS export: Store C, Apr 14–May 11, 2026
| Discount Type | Transactions | Total Value | % of Gross |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manager override / comp | 47 | $2,500 | 2.0% |
| Employee meal discount | 18 | $875 | 0.7% |
| Promotional (app promo) | 80 | $3,875 | 3.1% |
| Total | 145 | $7,250 | 5.8% |
Benchmark callout: Actual: 5.8% discount rate. Your target: 4.1%.
Review POS job permissions and employee job assignments.
Review POS job permissions and employee job assignments.
Monthly leakage: ~$2,125
Methodology: HIGH confidence. Discount and comp rates pulled directly from complete Toast POS exports for the period and compared against the other three locations and your 4.1% working target. The absence of a POS-enforced approval rule was confirmed against job permissions during the review.
03
WATCH
Weekday labor overage, Stores A+B (~$3,100/mo full-month exposure)
Weekends carry the sales volume; the weekday test is whether managers flex labor when covers soften. Avg weekday was 35% labor cost vs. a 28% target for stores A + B. The overage appears in every month of the trailing twelve: a standing pattern, not a soft April.
Average weekly labor bridge
| Metric | Stores A+B Weekly Average |
|---|---|
| Avg weekly weekday sales | ~$11,070 / week |
| Actual weekly weekday labor | ~$3,875 / week |
| Target weekly weekday labor | ~$3,100 / week |
| Avg overage cost | ~$775 / week |
| Four-week leakage | ~$3,100 / mo |
The issue is not weekday sales volume; it is fixed staffing on weekdays.
Monthly leakage: ~$3,100
Methodology: HIGH confidence. Built from POS-integrated scheduled-vs-actual labor and cover counts (7shifts and Toast) for the period, compared against the 28% labor target after normalizing for daypart mix. The weekday pattern was corroborated against the posted staffing template during the review. The daypart-level breakdown of this finding follows in the two store cards directly below.
Store B: Tuesday lunch and early-week late night run hottest
Store B's weekday labor averages 36.9% vs. the 28% target. The dinner rush holds near target; the drift is in thin lunches and late-night closes that stay staffed for weekend-size covers.
Weekday labor cost % by daypart: Store B
| Weekday | Lunch (11a–2p) | Dinner (5p–9p) | Late Night (9p–close) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monday | 44% | 31% | 52% |
| Tuesday | 47% | 30% | 49% |
| Wednesday | 42% | 29% | 46% |
| Thursday | 39% | 28% | 44% |
| Friday | 33% | 26% | 34% |
Cells above 32% (your labor red-flag line) are where staffing outruns covers. Tuesday lunch (47%) and Monday late night (52%) are the two worst.
Monthly overage by daypart: Store B
| Daypart | Avg weekday labor % | Target | Weekly overage | Monthly overage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lunch (Mon–Fri) | 41% | 28% | ~$230 | ~$920 |
| Late night (Mon–Fri) | 45% | 28% | ~$205 | ~$820 |
| Dinner (Mon–Fri) | 29% | 28% | ~$45 | ~$160 |
| Store B total | 36.9% | 28% | ~$475 | ~$1,900 |
Monday-morning move: Drop Store B Tuesday lunch FOH from 4 to 3 between 11am–1pm (ticket volume doesn't build until ~12:30pm), and run the Mon–Wed late-night close with one line cook instead of two after 9pm. Those two changes recover roughly $300/week on their own.
Daypart-attributable overage: ~$1,900/mo (part of the ~$3,100 in Red Flag 03)
Methodology: HIGH confidence. Built from POS-integrated scheduled-vs-actual labor and cover counts (7shifts and Toast) for the period, compared against the 28% labor target after normalizing for daypart mix. The weekday pattern was corroborated against the posted staffing template during the review.
Store A: same lunch and late-night drift, milder than Store B
Store A's weekday labor averages 33.2% vs. the 28% target. The shape matches Store B but is less severe, and dinner runs at or under target every weekday.
Weekday labor cost % by daypart: Store A
| Weekday | Lunch (11a–2p) | Dinner (5p–9p) | Late Night (9p–close) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monday | 38% | 29% | 45% |
| Tuesday | 40% | 28% | 43% |
| Wednesday | 37% | 27% | 41% |
| Thursday | 35% | 27% | 39% |
| Friday | 31% | 25% | 33% |
Tuesday lunch (40%) and Monday late night (45%) lead again, but no cell reaches Store B's extremes.
Monthly overage by daypart: Store A
| Daypart | Avg weekday labor % | Target | Weekly overage | Monthly overage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lunch (Mon–Fri) | 36% | 28% | ~$150 | ~$600 |
| Late night (Mon–Fri) | 40% | 28% | ~$150 | ~$600 |
| Dinner (Mon–Fri) | 27% | 28% | $0 | at target |
| Store A total | 33.2% | 28% | ~$300 | ~$1,200 |
Monday-morning move: Hold one fewer FOH on Store A weekday lunches until the noon build, and cut the second bartender on Mon–Tue late night. Store A's dinner staffing is already right; leave it alone.
Daypart-attributable overage: ~$1,200/mo (part of the ~$3,100 in Red Flag 03)
Methodology: HIGH confidence. Built from POS-integrated scheduled-vs-actual labor and cover counts (7shifts and Toast) for the period, compared against the 28% labor target after normalizing for daypart mix. The weekday pattern was corroborated against the posted staffing template during the review.
04
WATCH
Store D inventory shrinkage gap (~$1,735/mo, growing)
Waste logs incomplete (3 of 7 days). No 86 records matched the variance. Prior reconciliation (Apr 28) showed ~$680, so the gap roughly doubled in two weeks. Counts exist for two dates only, so no longer trend is available; that gap is part of the finding, and standing weekly counts are the fix.
Reconciliation: Store D, week of May 5–11, 2026
| Category | Theoretical | Physical | Variance | Price / Unit | Gap $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicken thighs (lb) | 847 | 781 | −66 | $3.01/lb | $199 |
| 80/20 ground beef (lb) | 623 | 578 | −45 | $4.20/lb | $189 |
| Salmon fillet (lb) | 214 | 196 | −18 | $8.55/lb | $154 |
| Domestic draft (12-pour unit) | 94 | 87 | −7 | $28/unit | $196 |
| House wine (750ml) | 72 | 63 | −9 | $18/bottle | $162 |
| Dry goods / produce | reconciled | reconciled | n/a | mixed | ~$835 |
| Total gap | ~$1,735 |
Benchmark callout: Actual: ~$1,735 inventory shrinkage gap. Your target: waste < 10% of food cost and complete waste logs.
Monthly leakage: ~$1,735
Methodology: MEDIUM confidence. Shrinkage triangulated across categories from MarketMan theoretical-vs-physical counts (April 28 and May 11) priced at current unit costs. Confidence is medium because waste logs were complete for only 3 of 7 days and no 86 records matched the variance, so the cause is not yet isolated.
05
WATCH
Store B after-hours voids: control/theft risk (~$690 quantified, exposure unknown)
Total void value $1,415 ÷ $123,000 sales = 1.15% of sales (over the < 1% target). The headline issue is the after-hours count concentration: this is a possible theft/control issue until receipt detail proves otherwise. Monthly void value sat under the 1% line for most of the trailing year and crossed it in the last three months; the pattern is recent, which argues for moving quickly.
Void log: Store B, Apr 14–May 11
| Employee ID | Voids | Avg Ticket | Total Voided | Reason Codes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emp #4821 | 21 | $31.90 | $670 | None on file |
| Emp #6093 | 14 | $36.15 | $506 | None on file |
| All other staff | 8 | $29.90 | $239 | 5 of 8 coded |
| Store B total | 43 | n/a | $1,415 | n/a |
35 of 43 voids occurred after 6 PM; company guideline is < 8 unresolved/month. Void value = 1.15% of Store B sales (target < 1%). 35 of 43 tied to two employee IDs, none with a reason code. Most-voided items: wings (12×), house cocktails (9×), desserts (8×). Quantified after-hours shrinkage: ~$690; full control/theft exposure is unquantified until receipt-level review is complete. Investigate the pattern before accusing staff.
Benchmark callout: Actual: 43 voids, 35 after 6 PM, 35 tied to two employee IDs, 1.15% of Store B sales. Your target: < 8 unresolved/month and void value < 1% of sales.
Monthly leakage: ~$690 quantified; control/theft exposure unknown
Methodology: MEDIUM confidence. Void counts and timing are complete from the Toast POS log for the period, and the after-hours concentration on two employee IDs is unambiguous. Confidence is medium because the cause is not operator-confirmed: no reason codes are on file and receipt-level detail has not been reviewed, so exposure beyond the ~$690 quantified stays open.
Owner Action Plan
- This week: Email/call Sysco rep; request consolidated pricing for chicken thighs, 80/20 ground beef, salmon fillets, and roma tomatoes.Potential savings: ~$4,800 in price-variance leakage per month.
- This week: Review POS job permissions. Double check that every employee has the appropriate job assigned. If all looks good review discounted checks. Follow up with manager afterwards.Potential savings: $2,125 per month, for Store C.
- Next scheduling cycle: Set cover-count triggers at Stores A & B, add pre-shift cut rules for soft weeknights, and give managers authority to send staff home when projected covers are below threshold.Potential savings: ~$775/week. Total ~$3,100 per month for Stores A+B.
- This week: Pull Store B's after-hours void report filtered by employee ID; review receipts for Emp #4821 and #6093 with the manager, require reason codes, add manager PIN approval for after-hours/no-reason voids, and monitor daily for two weeks. Treat as a control review before accusing staff.Potential savings: ~$690 per month, quantified for Store B; full control/theft exposure unknown.
- Before next invoice cycle: Manual inventory count at Store D, compared by category against system count and cross-referenced to receiving logs.Potential savings: ~$1,735 per month, for Store D.
Data Sources
| Source | Data Covered | Period |
|---|---|---|
| POS (Toast) | Sales, voids, discounts, comps by employee | Jun 2025–May 11, 2026 (trailing 12 months) |
| Labor/Scheduling (7shifts) | Scheduled vs. actual hours, cover count | Jun 2025–May 11, 2026 (trailing 12 months) |
| Supplier invoices (5 vendors, 42 invoices) | Unit pricing by SKU, cross-store comparison | Apr 1–May 11, 2026 (recent window) |
| Inventory (MarketMan) | Theoretical vs. physical by category | Apr 28 & May 11, 2026 (two counts) |
| 3PO (DoorDash, UberEats) | Order volume, platform fees, refund rate | Feb–May 11, 2026 (recent statements) |
This mock report uses illustrative operating data and directional calculations. In a real ADC engagement, figures would be validated against source systems before recommendations are finalized. ADC surfaces operating patterns; this is not a formal financial or compliance audit.