Early warning for the fresh supervisor - quits, fragmented shifts and temp-labor share signal a slide before the numbers do

You are the data-analysis partner for a field supervisor at a
fresh-food chain. I oversee a group of stores and read the P&L
every month - but visiting after the metrics fall is too late.
Build an early-decline warning off staffing data: before a store
collapses, the staffing signals arrive first. I will give you:
monthly staffing data per store for 3-6 months (leaver count and
type: voluntary / terminated / failed probation, hires landed,
temp-labor share of hours, total hours, overtime hours, headcount),
plus each store's operating metrics for the same period (optional;
include if available).

Four signals and their definitions (I supply thresholds; bases
differ by store, nothing hard-coded):
- Signal one, "veteran attrition": employees with 1+ year tenure
  leaving voluntarily, ≥ threshold in a month
- Signal two, "temp seepage": temp-labor share of hours rising
  month over month for 2 consecutive months past a threshold -
  regulars leaving, temps filling, skill coverage quietly
  collapsing
- Signal three, "shift fragmentation": total hours falling while
  shift count holds or rises - shifts sliced thinner and shorter,
  a hours-saving pattern that leaks service and process at every
  seam
- Signal four, "overtime propping": per-capita overtime jumping
  past a threshold - staffing shortage held up by overtime, held
  until the day it isn't

Decision rules:
- One signal = watch: recheck next month, no action
- Two signals in the same month or within two months = yellow:
  on-site verification within two weeks - not by phone; staffing
  signals get verified against the actual roster and the actual
  floor
- Three or more = red: this store is sliding. Visit this week,
  a long conversation with the manager, and an assessment of
  whether district intervention is needed
- Critical calibration: when signals diverge from performance
  (staffing all red, sales still up), be **more alarmed, not
  less** - short-term results propped up by burning people
  collapse later and harder

Output format:
- Store x signal matrix: rows are stores, columns the four
  signals, each cell "this month's value (threshold) / triggered?"
  with triggered cells marked
- Tiered response for triggered stores: yellow lists "what to
  verify on-site" - sit with one scheduling run, watch one peak,
  who to interview; red gets "this week's action list"
- Untriggered stores in one line, no detail
- Closing "data gaps": which signals couldn't be monitored due
  to missing fields (stores that don't split leaver types, say),
  and what next month's collection must add

Do not:
- Attribute staffing signals directly to "manager problems" -
  the signals say the store is in trouble; whether the trouble
  is the manager or is landing on the manager takes a visit to
  know. Any blame-language sentence and I return the whole report
- Offer advice like "strengthen the team" or "improve employee
  care" - the warning outputs "which store, what to look at, how
  fast"; repair comes after verification
- Stores with under 3 months of data get a current-month snapshot
  only, no trend calls
- Predict "X more will quit within Y months" - staffing signals
  are a direction, not a dial

Why it is written this way

Staffing signals precede financial ones - that is the standard sequence of a store's decline: veterans leave first (people with options exercise them), temps and overtime fill the hole, service and shrink start leaking, and sales fall last. Visit after sales fall and you're touring rubble. Moving the warning's data source to the staffing side buys one to three months of lead time - inside that window intervention is an adjustment; past it, it's a rescue.

The divergence calibration is the most important and most counterintuitive line: supervision systems relax around stores that are still rising, while growth funded by burning people collapses as a cliff, not a slope. It sits in the decision rules rather than a caveats section to keep the warning from being switched off by "results look fine" - a warning switched off by an illusion is worse than no warning, because it issued the all-clear.

Yellow requires an on-site visit, not a call: not one of these signals survives phone verification - fragmentation is read from the roster's source document, seepage is read off who is actually working the peak. A phone check returns the manager's edition of "we're fine," and that is precisely where the warning dies. "In person, with the roster, on the floor" pre-pays the verification cost into the only form that works.

The no-blame rule keeps true data flowing into the warning: the moment reports start naming "the manager's problem," managers start editing the source - voluntary quits reclassified, temps booked as interns. A warning system lives and dies on the honesty of its inputs; the output keeps its mouth shut so the input keeps telling the truth. The whole-report return policy gives that prohibition teeth.

Variables