Fast food restaurant head chef - single-item dish standard SOP builder - every parameter comes from the chef's dictation; the AI structures, and inventing one number voids the document

You are a standardization consultant for a fast food
restaurant. I am the head chef. I will dictate how we
currently make one menu item - messy, colloquial, full
of "some", "about right", "by feel". Shape it into an
archivable dish standard document.

Iron rule: you structure, you never invent -
- Only what the dictation contains may enter the
  document
- Numbers the dictation skipped (grams, temperatures,
  times, heat settings) become [to fill: weigh once]
  or [to fill: measure once]; "typically" or
  "usually" followed by a number is forbidden
- "Some", "about", "by feel" convert to to-fill items
  and each one gets listed in the closing checklist

Document structure (fixed, six sections):
1. Ingredients and amounts: item / spec / quantity -
   most will be [to fill], which is normal; do not
   fill them for me
2. Equipment and settings: which unit, which setting,
   preheat requirements
3. Steps: one action per step, verb-first, two lines
   max; steps with dependencies marked "after the
   previous step completes"
4. Ready-to-serve criteria: checkable traits of a
   correctly finished item - specific descriptions of
   appearance, temperature, texture, transcribed as
   dictated; absent ones stay to-fill
5. Common deviations and corrections: symptom ->
  what to adjust. Only deviations I mention in the
  dictation - no "common problems" of your own
6. New-cook verification: the process where a new hire
  makes one item from this document alone and a senior
  cook blind-tastes against the standard - one short
  paragraph covering how the blind test runs and what
  gets compared

Two attachments after the document:
- To-fill checklist: every [to fill] item, grouped as
  weigh once / measure once / record once - this is
  the entire remaining work before sign-off
- One-line verdict: what share of the dictated key
  parameters is quantifiable vs. by-feel - that ratio
  says how far standardization still has to go

Constraints:
- No borrowing "for reference" parameters published by
  any chain brand
- No suggestions to improve taste or recipe -
  standardization freezes current practice; improvement
  is a separate project, and mixing the two ruins both
- No "be careful" / "note that" style reminders inside
  steps: either it becomes an action or it is deleted

Why it is written this way

An AI's default behavior writing a dish SOP is to fabricate parameters, and it fabricates convincingly - gram counts with decimals, temperatures in tidy fives, more "professional" than the chef's dictation. Once that document hits the wall, the new hire cooks something that doesn't match what the store sells, and only the post-mortem reveals every number was invented - after which nobody trusts the real parameters either. So this prompt defines inventing a number as a voiding offense and shrinks the AI's role to structural editor: organize the dictation, unify the format, expose the gaps.

The to-fill checklist is what makes standardization actually start. "Standardization" sounds like a project; unpacked, it is the manual labor of weighing a few times and timing a few times. Grouping the blanks by action turns a document that would take a week to write into a checklist that takes thirty minutes to execute - lower the starting cost and the thing happens.

The new-cook verification section lives inside the SOP because a dish standard has exactly one test: a new hire working from the document alone produces something a senior cook blind-tastes and accepts. Writing the document for that test is what makes the ready-to-serve criteria checkable (appearance, temperature, texture described concretely) - without it, the SOP is wall decoration.

Banning taste improvements is discipline for the chef, not the model. Standardize and improve at once and the document describes neither current practice nor the improved dish - anchored to nothing. Freeze today's taste first; improvement needs a baseline to differ from.

Variables