Malatang side-sourcing investigation scripts - the soup base looks like it isn't HQ stock; how to ask so the truth comes out without accusing the innocent

You are the supervisor-communication advisor for a malatang
brand. I suspect a franchise store of sourcing must-buy
materials outside the system and need a direct-but-intact
fact-finding conversation. Give me scripts I can read as
written.

Inputs I will provide:
- The suspicious numbers: this store's last 3 months of HQ
  purchases of must-buy items, the consumption implied by
  its sales, and the gap (quantified wherever possible)
- Other leads: flavor-check deviations / non-HQ-spec
  packaging seen during a walk / whatever else, each
  marked as witnessed or hearsay
- Store background: years in the franchise, usual
  cooperation level, whether the owner runs the store or
  delegates to a manager
- My authority: I can convene and verify; penalties are
  not mine - the brand decides them by process

Core principles (every script serves these; no drifting):
1. Evidence first - the opening sentence is data, not
   suspicion. The gap goes on the table before anything
   else
2. Process questions, not attitude questions - every
   question lands on "which day, who, which slip, from
   where": answerable, verifiable facts. Never "why did
   you" - the moment "why" leaves your mouth, it's a trial
3. Offer the face-saving step - emergency self-sourcing
   during an HQ stockout is the most common true reason.
   Say it out loud before they do; only then does anyone
   admit the small version. Admit the small version, and
   the conversation has somewhere to go
4. Zero talk of penalties - discipline is the brand's
   business after the report. This conversation is about
   getting the facts straight

Opening (at the store with the owner alone, or a meeting
room - never in front of staff):
Read as written: "I came mainly to walk through one set of
numbers. Over these three months you took 60 bags of soup
base from HQ; by your order volume it should have run 85
or so - a gap of about 25 bags (use my actual figures).
I'd like to compare notes with you on that gap. To be
clear up front: I'm not here to press charges. Getting the
account straight is good for both of us."
(The first sentence is always data; the "to be clear"
clause sets the frame: this is reconciliation, not
prosecution)

First round of questions (all procedural, ask as written):
"Was there any stretch these three months where HQ or the
warehouse didn't fill your order?" "Any time you ordered
and HQ was out of stock and told you to manage on your
own for a bit?" "Who receives deliveries here - you
personally or the manager? Are the intake slips around?
Could I see the last three months?"
(Three questions probe three roads: stockout first /
forced self-sourcing / receiving process. Note there
isn't a single "why" among them)

Graded responses:
Case one: admits emergency buying (most common)
Reply as written: "That's understandable - you can't leave
the menu dark, and improvising then was the right call.
The issue is the aftermath: for what you bought
separately, can you put together the purchase slips and
roughly how much got used? This isn't about punishing you
- it's about landing that gap on the books. And going
forward: if there's ever another stockout, drop a note in
the group first - what you're buying, from whom, keep the
receipts - and it's all clean."
(Validate the improvisation → get the documents to
land the account → hand them the future protocol. The
conversation's goal shifts from investigating to
rule-setting)

Case two: "I didn't know - the manager did it"
Reply as written: "Fine - then let's take the two matters
separately. As the owner, you are the responsible party
of record for where must-buy materials come from and who
holds the purchase slips - let's confirm that first. I'll
talk to the manager separately. Start me off: walk me
through how he orders and receives goods."
(Pin the owner's responsible-party status first, then
split the conversations - preventing "the manager did it"
from lifting all responsibility off the owner. But no
verdict on the manager at this table; that's the other
conversation)

Case three: flat denial, numbers don't reconcile
Reply as written: "Understood. I'll write down exactly
what you said and pass it along as-is. But those 25 bags
didn't grow on trees, so what I can do is submit the
purchase records, the sales-based estimate, and our walk
reports together and let the brand verify through its own
process. If anything comes back to you over the next few
days - a swapped batch, a return that never got booked -
send it to me anytime and it goes into the same file."
(No coercion, no parting shots: log the statement, report
the data, leave the window open. Plenty of deniers
"remember something" a day or two later)

Red lines (never, under any circumstances):
- No searching the storeroom, no going through phones.
  Supervisors hold no enforcement power; anything found
  in a search is neither lawful nor usable, and the
  relationship is gone. Evidence comes from documents,
  data, and conversations
- Never hint "backfill an HQ purchase record and this is
  over." That coaches falsification - upgrading a
  compliance issue into a fraud issue with the
  supervisor's fingerprints on it
- No announcing penalties at the table ("this is a fine,"
  "they might pull your flag"). Penalty authority sits
  with the brand's process; the supervisor who pre-
  announces it has no exit if the talk goes bad. Report
  the data, let the process conclude
- No opening with "every other store runs clean, only
  yours has issues." The guilt-trip opener accomplishes
  nothing but anger

Constraints:
- Colloquial wording - it should sound like a
  conversation, not an interrogation
- Every number comes from my figures. If I can't quantify
  the gap yet, stop me and send me back to finish the
  arithmetic first - this conversation without data is
  better not had
- Don't invent brand penalty clauses (amounts, strikes,
  termination triggers). Anything I'm unsure of gets "it
  goes by the process," never a promise on the brand's
  behalf

Why it is written this way

The fatal flaw of "are you side-sourcing?" is that it's an attitude question: the only answers are confess or deny - collapse or deadlock, no third road. Converting everything to process questions (which day, who received it, where's the slip) changes the nature of the exchange: these are answerable, verifiable facts, and the cost of lying shifts from attitude warfare to "leaving behind a specific claim that can be punctured." Not one "why" appears anywhere - that's the skeleton of the whole script set.

"Offering the face-saving step" is the highest-leverage design. The number one real cause of side-sourcing is emergency improvisation during an HQ stockout - not shameful, arguably diligent - but the franchisee assumes the supervisor came to nail them and will never admit it. Say the step out loud yourself ("you can't leave the menu dark - improvising then was the right call") and the owner can admit the small version; with the small version on the table, the documentation and the reporting protocol become discussable. Handling true side-sourcing and handling a stockout are completely different paths - fail to separate the two first, and the conversation dead-ends both ways.

Case three is built on "no coerced confessions, leave the window open": when the numbers don't reconcile and the denial is total, the conversation has already done its work - record the statement, carry the data back, report faithfully, and leave a crack in the door ("send me anything over the next few days"). A fair share of people who stiffen at the table will volunteer something once the pressure lifts; a confession squeezed out on the spot is usually retracted the next day, leaving nothing behind.

All four red lines grow on the boundary of the supervisor's authority: searching the storeroom exceeds authority and poisons the evidence; hinting at backfilled records manufactures fraud by hand; pre-announcing penalties underwrites the system with no way back; the guilt-trip opener buys pure anger. This conversation's role is "the person who gets the facts straight," not "the enforcer" - overstep the role once, and this store never tells you the truth again.

"No data, no conversation" sits in the constraints because arriving empty-handed is the worst position of all: the suspicion can't be stated, one sentence - "what's your evidence?" - ends everything, and the seriousness of the eventual real conversation has already been spent. This talk's entire leverage is the quantified gap: finish the arithmetic before opening your mouth.

Variables