Hotpot restaurant customer service - delivery pot retrieval scripts: the pot is a rotating asset, chase it as a service, and state the deposit rule exactly once

You are the delivery service lead at a hotpot restaurant. Write a
script set for retrieving delivery pots and burners, escalating
through four stages, each entry in three fixed blocks: Script
(speakable verbatim) / Paired action / Never say.

Ground rules (all four stages):
- You are chasing the pot, not the money: every opening is a
  "pot pickup service," never a "return obligation." Under a service
  frame guests cooperate; under a debt frame they settle it with the
  deposit - the store trades reputation for cookware
- The deposit rule is spoken exactly twice in total: at hand-off and
  at the first overdue reminder. Never again - each repetition turns
  the notice into a threat
- Every commitment (pickup window, shipping) goes into a written
  message; no verbal-only versions

Stage 1: due date (service-framed reminder)
- Script: "Hi! The pot from yesterday's delivery is due back today.
  Three ways to return it, your pick: we come collect, you drop it
  off when passing the store, or courier it back - [shipping
  policy]. Which works for you?"
- Paired action: include the pickup booking slots in the message
- Never: "Please return the pot as soon as possible" - deadline
  wording is for after overdue; using it on day one leaves the
  escalation nowhere to go

Stage 2: three days overdue (three channels + rule restated)
- Script: "The pot is three days past due, so per the agreement the
  deposit starts [overdue handling policy] today. Same three return
  options - pick one today and I'll set it up."
- Paired action: state the deposit rule fully, once - and only this
  once; send the return booking slots
- Never: any punishment preview like "keep this up and we keep the
  deposit" - consequences are stated when executed, and every
  previewed consequence is a threat

Stage 3: guest says "lost it / damaged it" (replacement stance)
- Script: "No problem at all. The set is depreciated by usage -
  [depreciation policy] - priced on that basis, not on new. Deposit
  settles the difference either way; I'll send you the itemized
  math."
- Paired action: send the depreciation breakdown with pot and burner
  on separate lines, so the guest sees the method, not just a number
- Never: "replacement at full price" - the moment a new-price stance
  appears, the guest's first feeling is being fleeced, and that
  feeling is where the bad review comes from

Stage 4: no response (close-out)
- Script (final message): "Sorry for the pings - this is my last
  one. The [deposit offset policy] will be executed on [processing
  date]. If you ever want to return the pot, reach me anytime -
  nothing beyond the deposit will ever be charged."
- Paired action: hand the record to the manager for the delivery
  account list; whether the guest's future orders require a
  prepaid deposit follows [store follow-up policy]
- Never: never respond to pot disputes in public review sections -
  public replies address in-store experience only

Output format: one ground-rules section plus four stage sections,
scripts as quote blocks; each stage ends with its transition line -
what signal moves things to the next stage.

Overall discipline:
- Scripts conversational and speakable, each no longer than four
  sentences
- [ ] policies are set by the store; no invented shipping or
  depreciation figures
- No characterizing guests - words like "deadbeat" never appear

Why it is written this way

Behind pot lending sits a turnover account: the number of trips per pot is what amortizes delivery cost, so a pot parked at a guest's home is frozen asset - retrieval must happen. But no price buys back one bad review, so the posture must stay service-shaped. Everything in this set solves that single contradiction: repackaging the "return my property" confrontation back into a "schedule your pickup" service.

"State the deposit rule exactly once" counters the most common failure mode: an agent who mentions the deposit in every message stops sounding like a rule and starts sounding like extortion, and the rational guest response is to abandon the deposit and keep the pot - both sides lose. Saying it fully at hand-off and once at first overdue, then going quiet, is counter-intuitive for service staff and has to be hard-coded.

The depreciation breakdown shows the method, not just the amount, because replacement disputes are never about the number - they're about the feeling of being fleeced. The same 120 yuan reads as "a rule" when it arrives with the math attached and as "something they just made up" when it arrives alone.

The final message is the close-out hinge: it ends the process, leaves the door open ("return it anytime, no charge beyond the deposit" - capping the loss at the deposit instead of letting the pot become a dead account), and promises there is no next message. Without that close, "no response" turns into one-sided pestering by the agent - and the pestering itself becomes the next bad review.

Variables