Braised-food cashier - the end-of-day reconciliation SOP: card, cash, stored value, voucher redemptions, markdowns and write-offs - five accounts checked one by one, and the gap size that stops the close

Here is a user need. Expand it into an archivable "End-of-Day Cashier
Reconciliation SOP" for a braised-food store - one to two A4 pages, plain
store-level language, no filler.

Background (put this in the SOP's opening "Scope" section):
- Single- or dual-counter braised-food store, 1-2 cashiers on shift
- Payment types: QR/card via aggregated payment, cash, stored-value
  deductions, platform deal vouchers redeemed in store
- Counter specifics: goods sold by weight with no fixed barcodes;
  markdown sales and end-of-day write-offs exist; sampling portions
  exist and are not rung up
- Reconciliation happens at close, same shift, never rolled to the
  next day

The SOP must contain five reconciliation accounts. For each, state
three things: document source, the matching action (which number
gets checked against which), and tolerance plus over-tolerance action:

Account 1, Card/QR takings:
- Document source: the aggregated payment provider's per-transaction
  day list
- Matching action: provider total vs register system total, ticked
  transaction by transaction; voucher redemptions stay in account 4
  and never mix in here
- Over tolerance: gap within [1 unit], log it in the day's variance
  ledger and close normally; beyond that, first check "did the refund
  happen on only one side" (system yes, provider no, or the reverse);
  only escalate if the gap survives that check

Account 2, Cash:
- Document source: till counted physically (second count by a
  second person), float register
- Matching action: (counted cash - float) vs register system's
  cash-due total
- Over tolerance: every over/short, any amount, goes in the
  over/short ledger with shift and time band; a gap over [10 units]
  blocks the close until the shift lead recounts and signs. Cashiers
  topping up a shortfall with personal money is strictly forbidden -
  discovered self-top-ups are treated as a violation. Bold this line

Account 3, Stored-value deductions:
- Document source: member system deduction detail for the day
- Matching action: system deduction total vs the day's stored-value
  payment receipts; focus on manual deductions (recorded by hand
  during network outages, entered later) - every back-filled entry
  must match a customer-signed receipt
- Over tolerance: if any manual back-fill exists that day, it gets
  checked the same day, no exceptions - the manual step is where
  stored-value errors breed

Account 4, Voucher redemptions:
- Document source: each platform's merchant portal redemption log
- Matching action: platform count and value vs the register's
  voucher records; the usual failure shapes are "redeemed twice"
  and "platform shows redeemed, store never entered it"
- Over tolerance: a single mismatch triggers a check - zero
  tolerance by design. Voucher gaps are always an operating error
  somewhere; they do not settle themselves

Account 5, Markdowns and write-offs:
- Document source: the day's markdown receipts and write-off slips
  (item, weight, reason, handler)
- Matching action: markdown receipts vs system markdown records;
  write-off slips vs inventory deduction records
- Over tolerance: a write-off slip without the shift lead's
  signature is treated as undocumented - ratify it the same day or
  book it as undocumented, one of the two, never "later"

Two fixed closing sections:
- "Close confirmation": each account states its result (balanced /
  gap of how much / escalated), signatures from the closing cashier
  and the checker, plus a variance follow-up column for the next
  three days
- "Three iron rules": no topping up with personal money; no
  adjusting entries to flatten a gap (cashiers may not change any
  system number - escalate only); no overnight variances (log and
  investigate same day)

Expansion requirements:
- Leave tolerances as [] blanks for the store to fill
- No "raise service awareness" sections or anything off-topic
- Every over-tolerance action must be executable down to a concrete
  action and a concrete person

Why it is written this way

The five accounts are ordered by how far money travels from the register's front door: card and cash use the front door; stored value, vouchers, and markdowns and write-offs use the side doors - and the side doors are precisely what makes a braised-food counter different. In a weigh-and-chop business with no barcodes, markdown and write-off volume runs far beyond a packaged-goods store, and platform vouchers bypass the register by design. Decomposing to this granularity matters because "reconciliation" in a non-decomposed SOP means "make the grand totals match" - and totals that match while accounts cross-subsidize each other (a markdown booked as a voucher, say) are exactly the errors that stay invisible.

The iron rule against topping up a shortfall out of pocket deserves its own word: it's the kindest-intentioned thing cashiers do and it destroys the entire point of reconciliation. A shortfall is a signal that a process failed; topping up cuts the signal, and the same money goes missing the same way next week. Writing "treated as a violation" isn't harshness - it's protection. Leave that line soft and the most honest person on staff carries the biggest risk.

Zero tolerance for vouchers, against tolerances everywhere else, is deliberate. Card and cash carry genuine random noise (network lag, change-counting slips), and tolerances exist for randomness; voucher gaps have no random source whatsoever - every one of them is a definite operating error, so granting tolerance there would declare some errors exempt from checking. "Any manual back-fill gets checked the same day, no exceptions" follows the same logic: anything entered after the fact fails at an order of magnitude higher rate than live entry. That rule costs ten minutes a day and plugs the single largest hole in stored-value accounting.

Variables