SAMPLE REPORT — Illustrative company and figures. No live research was performed, actual agent executions: 0, MAX Not run, Guardians not run (built · integration pending). Human decisions remain required.
Sample Report 2 · Restaurants
Restaurant Profitability — Hours, Menus & Global Trends
Harbor Lane Kitchen, a 60-seat neighborhood restaurant (sample) · Sample results only
Client assignment
The owner is considering weekday lunch service (Tuesday to Saturday), Sunday dinner and three new dishes, and wants to know which move adds the most profit and how to test it safely.
How the client assigns it to TED: The owner tells TED the current hours, sample sales and labor figures and asks which expansion pays best. TED confirms the numbers are illustrative and that menu-trend research would be a plan, not a completed search.
Executive summary
On sample figures, lunch adds about $1,580 a week in contribution and Sunday dinner about $1,474, but lunch is far more sensitive to covers: at 25 covers a day it falls to $425. Recommended path: pilot Sunday dinner first, test lunch for eight weeks with a 20-cover daily break-even, and pilot three dishes at no more than 30% food cost.
$1,580
Lunch weekly contribution
At 40 covers/day, illustrative
$1,474
Sunday dinner contribution
At 90 covers, illustrative
~20
Lunch break-even covers/day
98 covers/week
Key findings
1. Lunch and Sunday dinner are close in expected value
The difference is about $106 a week, well inside the uncertainty of the cover forecasts.
2. Lunch carries more fixed weekly cost
$1,500 of labor and overhead must be covered before profit; each lunch cover contributes $15.40 after 30% food cost.
3. Sunday dinner uses existing demand patterns
A higher $38 average check and one shift make it simpler to staff and to stop if it underperforms.
Incremental weekly contribution (illustrative)
Contribution = revenue − food cost (30%) − added labor − added overhead. Labor at a sample $20/hour.
LineRevenue
- Lunch (5 days × 40 covers × $22)
- $4,400
- Sunday dinner (90 covers × $38)
- $3,420
LineFood cost (30%)
- Lunch (5 days × 40 covers × $22)
- −$1,320
- Sunday dinner (90 covers × $38)
- −$1,026
LineLabor
- Lunch (5 days × 40 covers × $22)
- −$1,200 (3 staff × 4 h × 5 days)
- Sunday dinner (90 covers × $38)
- −$720 (6 staff × 6 h)
LineAdded overhead
- Lunch (5 days × 40 covers × $22)
- −$300
- Sunday dinner (90 covers × $38)
- −$200
LineContribution
- Lunch (5 days × 40 covers × $22)
- $1,580
- Sunday dinner (90 covers × $38)
- $1,474
Lunch sensitivity to covers
Same check, food cost, labor and overhead; only covers change.
Covers/day25
- Weekly revenue
- $2,750
- Weekly contribution
- $425
Covers/day40 (base)
- Weekly revenue
- $4,400
- Weekly contribution
- $1,580
Covers/day55
- Weekly revenue
- $6,050
- Weekly contribution
- $2,735
Three proposed pilot dishes (illustrative costing)
Food cost % = plate cost ÷ menu price. Target 30% or lower.
DishCharred vegetable grain bowl
- Price
- $18
- Plate cost
- $5.20
- Food cost %
- 28.9%
DishBraised short rib tacos
- Price
- $24
- Plate cost
- $7.10
- Food cost %
- 29.6%
DishCitrus herb flatbread
- Price
- $14
- Plate cost
- $3.90
- Food cost %
- 27.9%
Options & decision table
Options compared
Illustrative; owner decides.
OptionSunday dinner pilot
- Weekly contribution
- $1,474
- Downside
- Lower fixed cost
- Ease to reverse
- Easy
OptionLunch pilot (8 weeks)
- Weekly contribution
- $1,580
- Downside
- $425 at 25 covers
- Ease to reverse
- Moderate (staff schedules)
OptionBoth at once
- Weekly contribution
- $3,054
- Downside
- Staff fatigue, kitchen strain
- Ease to reverse
- Harder
Prioritized action plan
- 1Launch a 6-week Sunday dinner pilot with a pre-set stop rule (below 60 covers for 3 weeks)Owner + chef · Next month
- 2Pilot the three dishes as specials; track sales mix and plate cost weeklyChef · Weeks 1 to 6
- 3Test lunch Thursday to Saturday first; expand only above 20 covers/dayGeneral manager · After Sunday review
- 4Confirm staffing hours, food safety training and allergen labeling for new itemsGeneral manager · Before launch
Success metrics
- Sunday covers at or above 75
- Lunch at or above 20 covers/day
- New dish food cost at or below 30%
- No food safety or allergen incidents
SOCRATEE's Perspective
Sample text, not generated
Assumptions to test
- Average checks hold when hours expand
- New service does not pull diners away from existing nights
- Staff are available at $20/hour
What deserves questioning
- How much of Sunday demand is new versus moved from Saturday?
- What does a slow first month do to staff morale?
- Are trend dishes right for this neighborhood?
Sources & evidence
Illustrative assumptions (not evidence)
- All covers, checks, wages and costs are sample numbers
- Dish names and plate costs are illustrative
Verified data needed before deciding
- Point-of-sale data by daypart
- Actual supplier pricing
- A documented competitor menu comparison (price bands, categories, portion sizes) using public menus
- A global menu-trend research plan: industry reports and public menus, cited and dated before use; no search has been performed
Verified evidence attached: none. No citations are provided because no research was performed.
Safeguards
- Food safety and allergen checks are human responsibilities
- Labor scheduling must follow local rules
- No claim of completed web research
Report status · Research & Review Record
- Actual agent executions: 0
- MAX independent grade: Not run
- 18 Guardians: Built · Integration Pending; no review occurred
- Live research: None performed
- Final decision: Always a human decision
Specialist roles (role definitions · not executed)
- TED — Coordinator: would scope the assignment, route work and assemble the report.
- RES — Would run the menu-trend and competitor-menu research plan with citations.
- KNOLLY — Would reconcile sales, labor and supplier records.
- Financial Analyst (role definition) — Would build the contribution and sensitivity model.
- SOCRATEE — Would challenge cannibalization and demand assumptions.
- LIBBY — Would flag food safety, allergen labeling and labor-rule considerations for human review.
- MAX — Potential independent grader. Not run; no grade exists.
- 18 Guardians — Potential oversight layer. Built · Integration Pending; no review occurred.
How AI Team One Works — Step by Step (prewritten)
Stage 1
The assignment
The owner asks whether lunch, Sunday dinner or new dishes add the most profit.
Stage 2
TED coordinates
TED splits work into a contribution model, a sensitivity test and a menu research plan.
Stage 3
Specialist responsibilities
A Financial Analyst role builds the model, RES plans trend research, LIBBY flags food safety items.
Stage 4
Oversight design
Oversight here would center on whether the model double-counts demand: SOCRATEE would test how much Sunday business is new versus moved from Saturday, LIBBY would keep allergen and food-safety checks with qualified people rather than the model, MAX could grade the contribution arithmetic, and the Guardians could review the pilot's stated assumptions. In this sample none of that ran: MAX Not run, Guardians not run (built · integration pending).
Stage 5
The executive report
The result would look like "Restaurant Profitability — Hours, Menus & Global Trends": findings, options, a prioritized action plan and the data still needed. Prewritten sample content; actual agent executions: 0.