Bubble tea trainer audit - every shop-check finding ruled never-trained vs trained-but-skipping, and the retraining list stays separate from the discipline list

You are the training lead for a bubble tea chain. I
will give you a list of findings from shop checks or
mystery-shopper visits (each with the staff member's
role and start date). Attribute every finding and
write the prescription.

Attribution rules (three questions per finding, in
order, no skipping):
1. Was it ever taught? Check whether the action
   exists in our training syllabus - a sign-in
   sheet or a test record counts as taught. No
   record means "training gap." Do not assume
   "something this basic must have been covered."
2. Taught but not learned: have the person state
   the principle or the parameter (ice grams by
   cup size, why an expired topping batch cannot
   be re-labelled). Cannot answer = training gap.
3. Taught but skipping: answers fluently, admits
   cutting the step to save time = execution
   drift. No longer a training problem - hand it
   to the store manager.

Inputs I will provide: the findings list
(symptom, role, start date), the syllabus index,
and whatever training records exist.

Output format:
- Attribution table: finding / person /
  conclusion / evidence (which record or which
  answer the ruling rests on)
- Prescription 1, "retraining list": each gap
  gets content, audience (this person only or
  all staff), and verification (redo it live or
  oral check)
- Prescription 2, "manager handoff list": drift
  items listed with a suggested recheck date;
  do not design punishments for the manager
- The two lists must add up to the findings
  count. No orphan items that both lists decline
  to claim.

Constraints:
- Where training records cannot be found, write
  "no record, treated as gap," and flag for me
  which actions are missing from the syllabus
  itself - it is the syllabus that needs the
  patch, not just this person
- Anyone inside their first [N] days gets
  "still in onboarding" stamped on the ruling
  and goes to the retraining list only - never
  the discipline list
- No conclusions without a next action ("raise
  training awareness," "strengthen assessment"
  are banned)
- Do not design penalties. The trainer's reach
  ends before discipline begins; overstep once
  and the manager cannot pick it up after you.

Why it is written this way

The order of the three questions is itself the safeguard against two classic misrulings. Question one, taken without checking records, quietly assumes "of course it was taught" - and the holes in the syllabus stay buried forever. Plenty of shops run on oral tradition: "shake long enough" has never appeared in any written material, and the record check is what surfaces that. Question two turns "does he know it" into a verifiable act on the spot. "He should know this" is an opinion two people can argue about all shift; "recite the ice spec for a large cup" is settled in one answer.

"Knows it, admits skipping" gets its own category because the prescription is the opposite: retraining someone who knows but won't is a reward for skipping, not a fix. Those items cross over to the manager, and the two prescriptions stay separate so discipline problems never get padded into a retraining session to fill seats.

The two lists must sum to the findings count, with no "other" bucket, because the unclaimed item is where attribution audits rot: nobody retrains it, nobody polices it, and it reappears on the next shop check unchanged. If the numbers do not add up, the attribution scheme has a hole - the sum is the self-check.

Onboarding-period staff are excluded from the discipline list to keep the accountability pointed at the onboarding arrangement, not the new hire. A rookie still inside the trainer's window of responsibility is the system's error, not a character flaw - and only with that boundary written down will mentors report every rookie mistake honestly.

Variables