Bubble tea franchise pre-signing due diligence checklist - demand the paperwork (franchise filing, registered trademark, stamped full supply price list), ask for openings and closings separately, then walk unannounced into three stores the franchisor did not pick and ask four questions; every refusal gets its own line, no excuses made for them

You are an investment due diligence coach for bubble
tea franchising. I am about to sign with a brand. Give
me a pre-signing due diligence checklist that I will
then execute: collecting documents, requesting data,
walking into stores unannounced.

Four blocks (fixed - with any block unfinished, never
issue a "clear to sign"):

1. Documents (if the original cannot be handed over,
   ask to see it and photograph it)
- Franchise filing: where the market requires one
  (mainland China: the franchisor must operate at
  least two directly-operated stores for over a year
  and file with the commerce authority) - ask for
  the filing number; deflection is recorded verbatim
  as "deflected"
- Trademark registration certificate: registered in
  the franchisor's own name, registration complete -
  "application pending" does not count
- Food business license and operating credentials
- Complete supply price list: a stamped version
  before signing; a "partial item reference price"
  is recorded as "refused"

2. Data (ask recruitment; record exactly what was and
   was not given)
- Total stores, openings in the past year, closings
  in the past year - three separate numbers; a
  total-only answer is recorded as "refused to break
  down"
- Franchisee renewal rate or average survival years
  (a refusal is recorded)

3. Interviews (the core - find the stores yourself,
   never the ones recruitment arranges)
- Walk unannounced into 3 franchise stores over one
  year old; skip the flagship stores recruitment
  tours and stores under six months old
- Ask each owner four questions: how long payback
  really took (against the recruitment pitch); how
  much pricier HQ supply is than market and which
  items are the worst; what the field supervisor
  actually does on a visit; the one thing they
  regret most
- An unwillingness to answer is recorded as
  "declined" - declining is itself a signal

4. Contract (check line by line; copy out anything
   you do not understand and ask - no skipping)
- Territory radius and compensation for breach in
  the same catchment
- Mandatory HQ purchasing; whether emergency
  self-sourcing is allowed when HQ runs out
- Whether HQ shares the cost of platform promos
- Transfer and exit: deposit refund conditions,
  buy-back terms for mandated equipment

Output:
- Completion sheet: what each block finished and
  what is missing
- Risk log: every "refused / deflected / declined /
  refused to break down" on its own row - no
  charitable explanations; "probably confidential"
  is banned
- Verdict, one of three: sign / sign with conditions
  (list which documents must land first) / do not
  sign - and point to which rows above drove it

Constraints:
- Recruiter verbal promises (territory protection,
  rebates, ad subsidies) never enter the evidence -
  a promise not in the contract is treated as
  nonexistent
- No subjective scoring items like "brand awareness"
  or "market prospects" - due diligence examines
  things you can actually obtain
- Do not cite "bubble tea franchises typically pay
  back in X months" - payback truth lives only in
  real stores; if you cannot ask, you cannot know

Why it is written this way

The interview block is the core, and the stores must be self-selected, because everything in the first three blocks can be staged by the franchisor - the flagship is a set, the recruitment pitch is a script, documents can be curated. Only a franchisee over a year in, not arranged, and not expecting you speaks without rehearsal. All four questions are open-ended and hard to beautify: payback has a control number sitting right next to it (the recruitment pitch), supply markup demands item names, supervisor behavior has checkable detail, and "biggest regret" has no standard answer at all.

Splitting the data request into three numbers guards against one specific move: quoting "800 stores nationwide" as proof of strength, when the real information is how many opened and how many closed within the past year - a refusal to break that total down is itself an answer worth recording. The rule that refusals get their own row, with no excuses attached, polices the diligence-doer's own psychology: once smitten, people start explaining red flags into curtains on the other side's behalf.

Verbal promises excluded from evidence and subjective items excluded from the checklist mark the tool's boundary. The former is the single most common source of post-signing disputes; the latter is because "brand awareness" has no objective handle - putting it on a checklist just dresses a good feeling in procedural legitimacy. A checklist is worth exactly what can be placed on the table.

Variables