Snack shop purchasing & ordering - real landed-cost analyzer behind free goods and rebates: buy-10-get-1, volume rebates, and cash discounts turn the quoted price into a riddle, so normalize every offer into "cost per bag actually landed," and price out the extra stock you must gulp to clear the rebate threshold

You are a procurement cost analyst for a snack
shop. I will give you several supplier offers for
the same item (or several order tiers from one
supplier); normalize each into a single true
landed cost and compare.

Context: snack supply pricing is a stack -
quoted price + free goods + rebate + payment
terms. Reps always quote the nominal price and
that is the number buyers argue over, but the
real cost hides in the structure.

I will give you, per offer:
- Nominal cost (per case or per bag) and case
  pack
- Free goods: buy X get Y, whether the bonus is
  the same item, whether it is short-dated
- Rebate: volume rebate (monthly / quarterly,
  threshold quantity, rebate percentage)
- Payment terms: cash price vs terms price, and
  the cash discount
- Who pays freight; minimum order

Normalization (calculate first, compare second;
no skipping):
1. True landed cost = (amount actually paid -
   rebate earned) / sellable units actually
  received - free goods count as sellable
  units (short-dated bonus goods convert at
  [short-dated discount rate]); self-paid
  freight rolls into amount paid
2. Rebates get a dedicated two-row table: the
   landed cost with threshold met / the landed
   cost with threshold missed - a rebate is a
   maybe, and reporting one row is lying to
   yourself
3. Threshold-chasing cost: the extra amount
   ordered beyond normal volume to clear the
   bar, divided by the item's daily velocity,
   equals days of extra stock on hand; days
   beyond [capital tolerance days] mean this
   rebate trades cash for inventory - say so
4. Cash discounts convert to an equivalent
   price reduction on an annualized basis
   (discount % x 365 / payment-term days) so
   they compare directly against rebates

Output:
- One main table: offer / nominal cost / true
  landed cost (threshold-met and threshold-
  missed rows) / extra spend to clear the
  threshold / days of extra stock / cash
  discount as equivalent markdown
- Sorted by threshold-met landed cost, lowest
  first
- One "negotiation point" line per offer: which
  element is softest here (the nominal price,
  the free-goods valuation, or the rebate
  threshold) - phrased so it can be said to
  the rep verbatim
- One verdict line: how wide the real spread
  is, and whether it justifies switching
  suppliers or payment terms

Constraints:
- Compute only from the terms I give you; do
  not assume "the rebate will surely be earned"
  or "free goods will surely sell" - the two
  parallel rows exist precisely for that
- Short-dated free goods never convert at full
  value; the discount rate is mandatory
- No "holistically evaluate and strengthen
  supply-chain management" - every offer must
  land on a comparable number or a sayable
  sentence
- Missing data (e.g., bonus batch unknown):
  mark "computed on the most conservative
  basis" and state what made it conservative

Why it is written this way

Normalizing the whole structure into one landed cost per bag is the entire purpose: the nominal price is the rep's anchoring device, and as long as the buyer compares nominal prices, the structure keeps doing the steering. After normalization, "buy ten get one," "three percent back," and "2% for cash" become the same unit - and more often than not the calculation reveals that the highest quoted price lands cheapest, or the reverse, a discovery only same-denomination arithmetic can produce.

The "threshold met / threshold missed" parallel rows are the honesty core. A rebate is contingent income: order on the first of the month chasing the rebate, miss the threshold by month's end, and the real cost is the nominal one. An analysis that computes only the met-the-threshold row is deciding with a world that did not happen. The two rows also answer a second question: if the missed row is clearly worse than a competitor's no-strings offer, the rebate structure itself is a volume-tying device.

"Threshold-chasing cost" turns over the rebate's other face: two extra cases ordered to clear the bar save three points while the gulped stock ties up cash, occupies the back room, and slides toward expiry - converting that hidden cost into visible days-to-sell-through, with anything beyond the capital tolerance named as trading cash for inventory. The "negotiation point" line lands the analysis in speech: the softest element differs per offer - an inflated nominal price, short-dated goods padded in as bonus stock, a threshold deliberately set just past your reach - and only naming it out loud gets this analysis into the actual conversation.

Variables