Bubble tea underperforming-store conversation scripts - align the numbers before touching the person, the manager talks first while the regional manager only asks, and the close must land "one action for next week, who verifies, which number we read next time"; four store situations, four scripts, and "show more ownership" is never said

You are a coaching trainer for regional managers in a
bubble tea chain. I am about to hold a performance
conversation with the manager of an underperforming
store. Give me structured scripts.

Iron rules (set first):
- Numbers before person: until the definitions align
  (time window, refunds, delivery cost allocation),
  the words "poor performance" do not leave my mouth
- The manager talks first, I only ask: the opening has
  the manager decompose it themselves - volume,
  ticket, realized price: which fell most, and why
  they think so
- The close lands three things: one action for next
  week (exactly one), who verifies it, and which
  number the next conversation reads. Missing any
  one, the meeting files as a chat.

Four store situations (I tell you which; you give
that script, each containing: [Opening line] /
[Three must-ask questions] / [Closing line, with a
number and a date] / [Never say]):

1. Numbers genuinely bad, manager cannot explain why
- Must-ask three: when were the numbers last normal;
  what happened in between (only what the manager
  personally confirmed, never "probably"); which
  number they would move first, and why that one
- Close on one action + verification method + review
  date

2. Numbers genuinely bad, but a real external cause
(roadworks, catchment redevelopment, competitor
opening)
- Verify the cause first: ask for checkable detail
(where exactly the hoarding runs, the competitor's
opening date) - rule out "internal wounds blamed on
external causes"
- This meeting's output is not a confession; it is
  the external-cause-period strategy: defend the
  regulars or push delivery, and until when
- Close: which metric is temporarily re-baselined
  for this period, until when, written into the
  conversation record

3. Numbers passable, but the manager cannot state
their own definitions
- No performance talk this meeting; fix the reports:
  how waste is computed, where delivery promo costs
  land, which hours figure they report
- Close: the three definitions written down and
  pinned at their desk before the next meeting; next
  meeting checks definitions first, then performance

4. Numbers good, but signs of leaving have appeared
- No performance talk. Ask the real reason; receive
  only four threads - money / growth / family /
  exhaustion - one receiving line each
- What I can grant on the spot goes into the record;
  what I cannot never becomes "let me see what I can
  do" - an empty promise settles as a faster
  resignation

Universal [Never say]: "You need to treat this store
like your own" / "I had high hopes for you" / "Other
stores manage fine" - these lines produce defense,
not action.

Constraints:
- Every sentence I speak in the meeting is either a
  question or a confirmation - lecture paragraphs are
  banned
- No dredging up history unrelated to the numbers
  (dress code, lateness at the last meeting)
- Any resources-for-commitment agreement goes into
  the record on the spot - "I'll sort it out later"
  equals never
- Every line speakable verbatim; no unutterable
  guidance like "just convey that you care"

Why it is written this way

"Numbers before person" leads the iron rules because most performance conversations capsize exactly there: the regional manager opens with "poor performance" computed on their own definitions, and the manager spends the first fifteen minutes explaining why the two number sets differ - the meeting's entire effective time consumed by table reconciliation. Align definitions first, and what gets discussed is the same store. "The manager talks first, I only ask" exists because the information the meeting actually needs to produce (what is really happening in that store) lives only in the manager's head; a verdict from the manager's boss first ensures it never comes out.

The four situations acknowledge that "underperforming numbers" names four entirely different problems. The external-cause type tests the manager's restraint hardest: accept the cause without verifying and management has surrendered to excuses; verify it and still demand a confession, and you are beating an honest person. Shifting the output from confession to "external-cause-period strategy plus temporary metrics" is what these stores actually need. The fourth type sits inside a performance script because the regional manager's most common regret is "the numbers were fine - how did they leave so suddenly?" Nobody leaves suddenly; the previous conversations just never talked about anything but numbers.

The closing triple (one action, who verifies, which number) is the meeting's contract. Agree only to "work hard next month" and next month's meeting replays this one; agree "one action plus one number to read" and the first two minutes of the next meeting already have words. "Who verifies" prevents the action from becoming a wish without a deadline.

Every prohibition is structural, never attitudinal: "show more ownership" is banned not for being wrong but for producing defense instead of action; lecture paragraphs are banned because the meeting's information flow should run one way - toward the manager - and lecturing reverses it.

Variables