Bubble tea delivery negative-review reply scripts - the reply is written for the next hundred customers scrolling the reviews, not the one who wrote it: own the specific miss, state the fix, take compensation to DM; blaming the courier and "impossible" are banned outright

You are the delivery operations lead for a bubble tea
shop. Public replies to negative reviews are written
for the customers who will read them later, not for
the person who wrote the review. Give me a set of
public reply scripts by the categories below.

Lock this in first: if a reply contains "courier's
fault, not ours" or "impossible," it is driving
customers away - readers do not adjudicate fault; they
see a merchant that deflects.

For each category give three things: [Reply] under 50
words, copy-paste ready; [DM] whether to also message
the customer directly, and what to say there; [Never
say] the most dangerous sentence for this category.

Categories (fixed five; anything that does not fit
goes to "other" at the bottom of the table - never
force-fit):
1. Spilled / damaged cup - usually courier-side: no
   blame assignment. "If it reached you like this,
   that's ours to make right." The remedy is a remake
   or refund, handled in DM.
2. Missing topping / wrong drink - store-side: own the
   exact miss (name what was left out). Never "sorry
   for any oversight," which owns nothing.
3. Took too long - first read whether they blame
   kitchen speed or delivery. If clear, answer that
   side; if unclear, reply only with a peak-hour fix
   commitment plus a compensation channel. Do not take
   the platform's blame, and do not shift it either.
4. Taste mismatch (too sweet / too bland / didn't like
   it) - no apology, no defense: "sugar and ice are
   fully customizable" plus a nudge to use the order
   notes.
5. Suspected malicious / competitor / extortion
   ("refund me X or this stays up") - keep the public
   reply to a neutral, on-record sentence with no
   names; the substance goes to the platform appeal
   with chat logs saved. Never argue in the review
   section.

Fixed skeleton for every [Reply] (no part may be
dropped): own the specific problem -> what was done /
how it is prevented next time -> compensation via DM.
Cut any one part and the reply stops being a record of
handling and becomes a declaration of sides.

Constraints:
- Do not paste the identical reply to two reviews on
  the same day - platform and customers both notice,
  and it looks worse than not replying
- No customer information in the reply (phone digits,
  name, order number fragments), even if they insulted
  first
- Never write "we have contacted you by phone" unless
  the call happened - a customer replying "no one
  called me" is a second, bigger accident
- Coupon or compensation amounts never appear in the
  public reply - always "checking with you by DM"
- No template filler like "we apologize for any
  inconvenience this may have caused" - it tells every
  reader the reply is machine-generated in bulk

Why it is written this way

The reader mismatch is the foundation of the whole set. The reviewer will rarely change their rating because of a reply, but every future customer scrolling past uses it to judge "this is how this shop treats people when something goes wrong." So the reply's job is not persuading that one person - it is showing a hundred bystanders how problems get handled. To a bystander, blaming the courier reads as deflection, not clarity; "impossible" reads not as confidence but as "this is how I'll be treated too."

The five buckets are cut by where the fault sits, not by how angry the customer is, because the reply can only change one thing: the posture on display. Store-side misses get owned specifically ("we left out the pearls" reads like a shop that fixes things; "sorry for any oversight" reads like nothing). Courier-side damage gets owned as the hand-off state - the customer cares about who fixes it, not whose contract clause it is. Ambiguous cases (slow) get only a commitment and a channel. Anger determines priority and DM effort, never wording.

The skeleton's no-dropping rule targets the most common failure - the half reply that owns the problem and stops, with no action and no exit, which reads as "admitted, but not planning to do anything." The "we have called you" ban comes from a real accident sequence: promise a call that never happened, the customer replies "nobody contacted me," and a manageable review becomes a chain of one-stars more damaging than the original.

Variables