BBQ stick-count checkout and dispute SOP - one cup per table, count in front of the guest, and small-dispute concessions as written policy, not the server eating the loss

You are a service-standards consultant for a BBQ restaurant. Write "stick-count checkout and stick-count dispute handling" as an archivable SOP. Money thresholds and cup capacity are this shop's conventions at [ ] - not yours to fill.

The SOP covers the following sections, each written down to who does it, at what moment, and what counts as done:

1. Scope: which items bill by the stick here and which run on the order ticket - and how the bill merges when both pricing modes coexist
2. Stick-cup management:
   - One cup per table, placed at seating; merged or pushed tables get different-colored cups or a marking
   - Dropped sticks, children playing with them, guests tossing them by mistake - reported the moment noticed and logged by whoever marks tickets, not discovered at checkout
   - Swap in a fresh cup at [capacity gauge]; seal the old one and write the table number - preventing spills and cross-table mixing
3. Counting procedure:
   - Timing: count in front of the guest when they ask for the check - never cleared early, never counted in the back with a number announced after
   - Method: count meat and vegetable separately; announce "X meat, Y vegetable, drinks per the ticket, Z total," then check against the order for variance (a big variance gets self-checked first, never challenged at the guest first)
   - Order of operations: reconcile the ticket before announcing the price - reversed, it hands the conflict to the guest
4. Tiered dispute handling:
   - Small (variance <= [threshold]): bill what the guest says; the server decides on the spot and closes it; logged to the dispute ledger afterward - written authorization from the shop, not the server eating a loss
   - Large (variance > [threshold]): call the manager; check serving records and cup markings, surveillance if needed; a cap on how long the guest waits [ ]
   - Emotions running high: switch to the de-escalation posture - lower the temperature first, count sticks second
5. Comp and waiver logging: comps tracked separately (kept out of the cup or on marked sticks); round-downs and waivers leave a trace in the register - these are exactly where the month-end reconciliation bleeds
6. Log and weekly review: dispute ledger fields (date / table / disputed amount / resolution / cause category); categorized weekly - frequent drops mean a different cup, frequent merged-table mixing means a different marking, one item disputing repeatedly means auditing its serving records

Three red lines (a same-shift review on discovery):
- Clearing the stick cup before checkout - the evidence vanishes and the dispute is unwinnable forever
- Revising a count after announcing it - the number you count is the number; one walk-back and every count in the house stops being believable
- Unlogged comps - when the month won't reconcile, the register is what cannot explain itself

Constraints:
- No "explain patiently" or "smile through it" - every action needs a moment and a checkable standard
- The small-dispute threshold [ ] is this shop's to set; suggest no number
- No statute references - this is in-house service procedure, not a legal document
- Keep it to a page and a half; the counting section must survive being torn out and taped at the register

Why it is written this way

The small-dispute rule - "bill what the guest says" - written as explicit authorization is the most important line in the document. Small variances in stick counting have a dozen innocent causes (drops, mixing, tosses); running a full stick-by-stick investigation costs more in server time and guest experience than the variance itself. But without written policy a server will not act: conceding feels like personal liability, refusing freezes the table mid-service. Writing "concede small, close on the spot, log it" as shop rule gives the server a straight spine at the table - this is process damage-control, not my loss. The ledger entry is what keeps the authorization from decaying into casual favor-giving.

"Count in front of the guest, never clear early, never count in the back" - these timing rules are evidence preservation at heart. The sticks are the entire basis of this bill; clear them early or count them offstage and the house has destroyed its own evidence the moment a dispute starts. The guest's memory may be imperfect, but a shop that shreds its evidence first will settle on the guest's version forever - and loses every chance to find its own process leak. The three red lines (cleared cups, revised counts, unlogged comps) each map to some version of "the evidence disappears"; they carry same-shift review severity because what they guard is not a few coins on one check but the credibility of this entire pricing method.

"Report drops the moment noticed" moves dispute handling forward to the moment of cause. The fatal pattern in nearly all stick disputes is "the shortfall surfaces at checkout and nobody can say when it happened" - pushing the discovery to the drop itself, with one logged line, gives that table something to reconcile against. It is the cheapest rule in the SOP (one line of writing) and the most effective at shrinking total dispute volume.

Weekly review by cause category (frequent drops -> different cup; frequent mixing -> different marking) turns the ledger from a record into an improvement input. The structural sources of stick disputes are few, and each has a craft fix; a shop that skips categorized review replays the same disputes weekly and concludes "guests are unreasonable" - the laziest and most wrong attribution available.

Variables