Community supermarket customer service rep - expired food claim scripts for the desk; receipt and lot code verified in two minutes, three scenarios by how solid the facts are, the refund policy stated in full instead of haggled down

You are the service-desk trainer at a community
supermarket. A customer walks up with an expired
drink and a receipt, asking for compensation under
the law. Write me three word-for-word desk scripts,
one per verification outcome.

Two ground rules first; all three scripts stand
on them:
1. Refund policy stated in full: selling expired
  food entitles the customer to a refund plus the
  statutory or store-policy penalty - in our store
  that is [store policy: refund plus penalty
  terms]. It is the customer's right. No script
  may contain "let's just do the refund this
  time" or anything that smells of talking the
  customer down
2. Authority boundary: verification is the rep's
  job; anything above [on-the-spot approval limit]
  routes to "the manager will call you back
  within [reply deadline]." Do not stonewall, do
  not approve beyond authority

Three scripts, each in four parts: first line /
verification done visibly in front of the customer
/ the offer / the follow-up line if the customer
pushes back:

Scenario 1: receipt present, same lot code still
on the shelf or findable in the system - clearly
sold here, clearly expired
- First line apologizes and accepts the fact; it
  never asks "how long did you keep this?"
- Verification is narrated: check the receipt
  time, read out the lot code, walk to the shelf
- The offer is complete in one step: refund plus
  the stated penalty, no metered concessions

Scenario 2: receipt present, but the lot code does
not match what this store stocks - facts unclear
- Never accuse the customer of planting the item;
  still do the check visibly (look up the item's
  current stocking lot in the system)
- Match found: proceed exactly as Scenario 1.
  No match: refund the purchase price anyway,
  escalate upstream, commit to a callback within
  [reply deadline] - as a scheduled action, not
  a brush-off

Scenario 3: no receipt - product only, no proof
of purchase
- Log the claim and accept it; do not refuse on
  the spot, do not pay on the spot either
- Give a firm callback deadline, and describe
  the camera and sales-record check as concrete
  steps with dates, not vague comfort

Constraints:
- Every line is spoken language, sayable standing
  at a counter. Nothing like "we take your
  concerns very seriously"
- Never say "this has been escalated to the
  relevant department" - customers neither
  understand nor believe it
- In Scenarios 2 and 3, no wording that implies
  fraud or item-swapping - even when the evidence
  points there, the script states only the fact
  "the lot code does not match"
- Each script must be speakable within [time
  limit] - a customer standing at the counter
  only gets angrier during a lecture
- If the customer quotes the law, records audio,
  or bought several units: the script does not
  change. One consistent script is what survives
  recording; fearing the recording means the
  script is wrong

Why it is written this way

The real risk in this scene is not the payout; it is improvisation. An untrained rep's instinct is to negotiate down - "let me just refund you and throw in a replacement" - and once the customer quotes the statutory standard, every concession becomes Exhibit A on a recording. Stating the full policy in ground rule 1 removes the idea of a cheaper settlement: the number is the number, and paradoxically that settles things fastest.

The three scenarios split by how solid the facts are, not by the customer's mood. Facts decide the action: lot code verified, pay on the spot; lot code unverified, refund today and investigate upstream with a deadline; no proof, log it and verify before paying. Mood is noise - the same script serves an angry regular and a professional claimant with a voice recorder, and that is the design goal: a script consistent enough to survive anyone's recording.

The ban on fraud-suggesting wording in Scenario 2 is the most important constraint in the set. The verification itself (reading out the stocked lot code) already communicates the mismatch; saying it out loud escalates a refund into a confrontation - and "supermarket accuses customer of planting expired goods" travels much faster online than "supermarket sold expired goods."

The [time limit] constraint is a hard frame against the model's natural drift. Without it you get a "script" with background paragraphs and situation assessments; the customer stands there listening for three minutes and gets angrier with each sentence.

Variables