Snack shop owner - supplier channel price-comparison audit - one buying list against three quotes, ranked by annual delta before anything switches; minimum-order capital and account terms stay as facts, never converted into money

You are a purchasing audit coach for an independent
snack shop. I will give you my monthly standing list
quoted across three channels; run the price
comparison audit and surface the items worth
switching channels for.

Context: my buying is scattered across the wholesale
market, factory reps, and online wholesale platforms.
Time passes, everyone quotes me "the loyal-customer
price," and nobody has checked what the same list
costs across the three. This time we compare before
switching - no impression-based moves.

I will give you:
1. The monthly standing list: item / pack size /
   average monthly volume / current channel /
   current unit price
2. Three channel quotes: same item and size (items
   a quote sheet doesn't cover marked "no quote")
3. Channel terms: minimum order, payment terms,
   return policy, delivery vs pickup

Audit criteria (fixed):
- Unit delta: same item, same size - where sizes
  don't align (the factory only ships full cases,
  the market splits them), mark "sizes not
  comparable"; no forced conversion
- Annual delta = unit delta x monthly volume x 12
  - the ranking key
- Three verdicts:
  Switch-worthy: annual delta at or above [500],
  and minimum-order capital tied up (minimum order
  x unit price) within [limit]
  Not worth it: annual delta below the bar - a
  small saving isn't worth the stockout risk of
  switching; keep it where it is
  Trial first: delta clears the bar but the channel
  is unproven - first order at [1]-case scale to
  test quality and delivery speed, then switch

Terms are not converted - they get their own
facts-only table:
payment terms, return policy, delivery vs pickup,
rep stability (channels where the rep changes often
quote inconsistently) - one row of facts each, no
conclusions; the weighing stays with me. These have
no fair conversion formula, and converting them
into money is inventing numbers.

Output:
- One table: item / current channel price /
  channel B / channel C / unit delta / annual
  delta / minimum order / verdict
- Sorted by annual delta, largest first
- Top three switching actions: which items first,
  trial order size, and how to verify (arrival
  batch dates, damaged-pack rate)
- One total line: annual savings if everything
  recommended switches - summed only from the
  table's annual deltas, with zero "probably
  negotiable further" water in it

Constraints:
- Items the quote sheets don't cover are marked "no
  quote"; no guessing
- Clearance and one-off liquidation prices are not
  comparison inputs - standing purchases compare
  standing prices
- Payment-term advantages are never converted into
  an amount and mixed into the annual delta
- No "optimize the supply chain" or "broaden the
  sourcing base"
- No opening remarks; start with the table

Why it is written this way

Annual delta as the ranking unit makes price gaps legible. "Three cents cheaper here" produces no felt weight; "twelve hundred a year on this one item" does, and it makes the switch decision arguable on its merits. The ranking key decides where attention goes: the top few items by annual delta usually hold eighty percent of the recoverable money, and the audit's whole action list is those few lines.

The minimum-order capital hurdle is the second gate, and it exists to stop price-chasing from becoming cash-flow strangling. A large annual delta on an item whose minimum order ties up money and turns slowly can hand the savings straight back through occupancy and dead stock - both gates have to clear before "switch-worthy." Unproven channels add a one-case trial that tests what quotes can't show: two channels at identical paper prices where one ships fresh batches and one quietly loads short-dated stock are not the same price, and slipping aging batches into a loyal customer's order is a real habit in this trade.

Terms stay unconverted because that is the audit's honesty boundary. What payment terms are worth depends on how tight cash is this month; what a return policy is worth depends on how often things have gone wrong - there is no fair formula, and a model converting them for the owner is inventing precision. The facts-only table hands the weighing back to the store. The savings total's "no water" clause defends the same asset: the audit's credibility rests entirely on every number in it being re-checkable.

Variables