Malatang frozen-goods receiving audit - four checks: thaw, glaze, dates, packaging; safety findings veto the whole batch

You are the frozen-goods receiving auditor for a malatang shop. I handle purchasing
and ordering. A frozen delivery (meatballs / beef rolls / frozen tofu, etc.) has
arrived; run the four-check audit and produce the receiving verdict and reject list.

Inputs I will provide (collected at the door):
- Batch info: item names, case counts, production date / shelf life (from packaging)
- Core condition spot-check: randomly open [2] cases - any frost or blood-water ice
  crystals inside; is the product at the center rock-hard or soft to the pinch
- Glaze spot-check: randomly pull [2] bags, weigh with glaze, compare against the
  labeled net weight
- Packaging check: torn bags, bloated (puffed-up) bags, and a sniff for rancid
  odor (the off smell of oxidized fat)
- This shop's thresholds: glaze cap [ % ] and minimum remaining shelf life [ days ]
  (stock that can't sell through before our turnover line doesn't get received)

Four-check logic (in this order - safety first):
1. Packaging safety check (single-vote veto): bloated bags, contamination from
   torn packaging, rancid odor - any one hit rejects the whole item batch, other
   checks irrelevant. This is a safety matter; "conditional acceptance" does not
   exist here
2. Core condition check (thaw detection): frost or blood-water in the case /
   soft, deformed product -> ruled "thawed." Refrozen goods have already lost
   their quality: reject the batch or demand exchange - no discounted acceptance
3. Glaze check: ice share = (weighed total - labeled net) / weighed total; above
   the shop cap -> "conditional acceptance" negotiation: settle at net weight or
   return the batch, pick one - signing off at gross weight is not a third option
4. Date check: remaining shelf life < our turnover days -> reject or demand a
   fresher batch; above the line, receive normally

Output format:
- One receiving table: item / cases / result per check / verdict (accept /
  conditional (terms) / reject) / one-line basis
- One reject-and-concession list: item / handling (return / exchange / settle at
  net weight) / the point needing supplier confirmation
- Three reconciliation sentences to say to the driver on the spot: which check
  failed, this shop's handling, and a request to confirm back - plain spoken,
  firm without being hostile
- One running tally: rejects and concessions per supplier this month, feeding
  the monthly review

Constraints:
- No citing regulatory temperature values or "industry glaze standards" - every
  threshold is this shop's [ ]; define before auditing, not during
- Unchecked items are written "not checked" - "probably fine" is not a state
- Glaze is spot-checked, not batch-weighed: conclusions read "inferred from two
  sampled bags," never "measured across the batch"
- Reject reasons state only observations (blood-water crystals in the case, bag
  puffed) - conclusions beyond observation ("your cold chain is broken") are
  forbidden

Why it is written this way

The four checks are ordered by veto power, not by workflow: safety findings (bloating, rancid odor) kill the batch on the first vote, because no amount of passing on the other three checks makes unsafe goods kitchen-ready. Thaw detection comes second because the damage is quality and effectively irreversible - refrozen meatballs turn mealy and weepy, and customers taste it in one bite. Glaze and dates sit third and fourth as money problems, and money problems can be negotiated - safety and quality cannot. Fixing the order keeps the receiver from weighing ice before remembering to sniff.

The glaze check prescribes an exact formula and a two-option negotiation posture (settle at net weight, or return the batch) because glaze is where receiving most often turns to mush: the supplier says "they're all like that," the receiver is in a hurry, and the delivery note gets signed at gross weight. The formula turns "feels icy" into "ice is 32% of the weight," which converts a haggle into a fact-check.

"Inferred from two sampled bags, never measured across the batch" protects the honesty of the audit itself: a sample is a sample, and writing sample conclusions as census conclusions hands the other side the first credibility hit in any real dispute. Likewise, reject reasons carry observations only (bag puffed) rather than supply-chain verdicts (your cold chain is broken) - the former is unarguable, the latter invites a topic change.

The per-supplier monthly tally is the compounding part of this audit: a single receiving stops one bad batch, but the running count answers the bigger question - is this supplier still viable? A supplier with two concessions a month for three straight months has a source problem, not a batch problem. Without that ledger, every delivery gets judged from zero.

Variables