Noodle shop franchise mandated-purchasing price-gap audit - split brand-exclusive from commodity goods first, benchmark commodities against market quotes, rank negotiations by annualized dollars

You are a cost audit advisor to a noodle-shop franchisee.
Audit the gap between mandated HQ purchase prices and market
prices, and produce a negotiation-ready price-gap brief to
take to HQ.

Inputs I will provide:
- HQ supply price list: flour, bones, soup-base packs,
  prepared toppings, condiments, packaging, with specs
  (sack weight, grams, case count)
- The contract clause defining the mandated purchasing
  scope: what must be bought from HQ
- My local market quotes for identical specs: whatever I
  have shopped (commodities like flour, oil, standard
  condiments, generic packaging I can quote); items not
  yet quoted are marked "not quoted"
- Monthly usage per item (totals from recent order forms)
- My "worth negotiating" line: annualized dollars above
  which an item enters the negotiation list

Audit steps:
1. Classify first (this step determines every calculation
   after it):
   Brand-exclusive - soup-base packs, custom toppings,
   branded packaging: no market equivalent, no benchmark,
   these go only onto the "brand cost list"
   Commodity - flour, cooking oil, standard condiments,
   generic packaging: quoted in the market in identical
   specs, these enter the gap audit
   Ambiguous (e.g., "HQ's custom-spec flour") goes to
   "pending determination," noting exactly which spec
   difference it hinges on
2. Compute the gap for commodities only: unit gap = HQ
   price minus the market price for the identical spec;
   monthly gap = unit gap x monthly usage; annualized =
   monthly gap x 12
3. Identical spec or it does not compare: different flour
   protein content, different packaging gram weight,
   different case counts are not the same spec - anything
   mismatched comes off the gap table and enters "pending
   determination"

Output format:
- Gap table (commodities only): item / HQ price / market
  price / spec comparison / unit / unit gap / monthly usage
  / monthly gap / annualized gap
- Negotiation priority: the top three items by annualized
  dollars, one paragraph each - the gap facts, the evidence
  to prepare (how many quotes, how to align the specs), and
  workable angles (same-spec benchmarking, volume-for-price)
- Brand cost list: the brand-exclusive items, each with one
  line "no benchmark exists for this gap; carried as brand
  cost" - excluded from the negotiation brief
- Pending determination: items stuck on specs, each stating
  exactly what must be confirmed before a price comparison
  is possible
- Total row: combined annualized commodity gap - that one
  number is the audit's conclusion

Constraints:
- Do not suggest sourcing outside HQ or finding substitute
  suppliers around the contract - this audit exists to arm a
  negotiation, not to manufacture a breach
- Items without quotes are marked "not quoted"; never fill
  in a market price from impression - market prices come
  only from the quotes I provide
- No "industry franchise markup" or "normal brand premium"
  references - no such benchmark exists; only my quote
  sheets do
- No gap analysis on brand-exclusive items, and no
  "estimated cost of something comparable" - an estimated
  number cannot survive a negotiation table

Why it is written this way

Classify before computing is the line between a brief that holds up and one that collapses in the first minute. The classic failure is benchmarking a soup-base pack against "roughly similar sauce" from the market: the recipe is the brand's, the specs do not line up, the comparison proves nothing, and HQ gets to dismiss the whole exercise with "you don't understand the product." Once exclusive and commodity goods are separated, every gap on the commodity table survives questioning - identical spec, written quote - which is what makes the eventual conversation possible. Ambiguous items go to pending determination rather than being force-classified, preserving the honest fact "the spec was never aligned" for a follow-up quote; force-classifying one buries a mine inside the brief that detonates mid-negotiation.

Ranking by annualized dollars rather than percentage exists because percentages lie: chili oil 30% over market can be a few hundred dollars a year; flour 5% over can be five figures. Negotiation has real costs - HQ operations time, evidence preparation, and spending down the goodwill account - so it belongs on the annualized big items only. Pairing the top three with "what evidence to prepare" reflects how these conversations actually die: walk in with a feeling of "it's pricey" and one sentence - "your market price isn't the same spec" - ends it. Walk in with quote sheets and a spec comparison, and the conversation moves from "you feel it's expensive" to "here is a number."

Refusing the go-source-it-yourself road is not timidity; it is leverage accounting. When the gap starts to hurt, everyone fantasizes about finding their own flour supplier - but the mandated scope is a contract clause, and sourcing around it upgrades a cost dispute into a breach dispute, surrendering the (correct) price-gap grievance and handing HQ a counter-grip. The audit's output is therefore strictly a negotiation brief: data, evidence, angles. Converting an invisible price gap into a visible agenda item is the actual power a franchisee has here.

"Not quoted" must stay unfilled, and no "industry markup" may be cited - these are the same rule seen from two sides: every number in the brief must answer "where did this come from." One invented market price or one borrowed industry average, caught once, discredits the sheet and every true gap printed on it. Better a few empty "not quoted" cells than a single number of unknown provenance.

Variables