Extract discovery insights

Next-quarter synthesis: prioritise delivery-to-invoice accuracy, not a marketplace

Recommendation: Build and validate a focused workflow for recording what arrived, flagging discrepancies and resolving invoice/credit issues. Continue targeted supplier onboarding, but do not commit next quarter to a broad marketplace. The evidence supports operational accuracy more broadly than supplier discovery.

Main findings and evidence strength

1. Supplier requests lead ticket volume—but are heavily concentrated in one account

The export contains 200 tickets:

Account counts are deduplicated within categories; they should not be summed across categories.

Calder Group generated 58 of the 75 supplier tickets (77%), repeatedly requesting onboarding for four named suppliers or supplier types. The other 17 supplier tickets came from 17 accounts.

Evidence strength: Strong evidence of a concentrated supplier-coverage need; weak evidence that a marketplace is the right solution. Ticket volume measures support demand, not independent customer votes. Repeated requests may indicate an important unresolved problem, but not broad market demand.

Calder’s 14 sites and stated willingness to move all ordering to Larder warrant commercial follow-up. However, this is a conditional intention—not a commitment—and we have no revenue or order-volume evidence to size the opportunity. Requests to add existing suppliers must also be distinguished from discovering new ones.

2. Delivery and invoice problems affect a broader set of accounts

Together, delivery discrepancies and invoice reconciliation account for 63 tickets from 62 distinct accounts, compared with supplier requests from 18 accounts.

The interviews reinforce this pattern. Eight of ten excerpts describe delivery, reconciliation or paperwork pain, although the tapas bar’s comment is less specific. Examples include:

• Discovering a short delivery only when the invoice arrives.
• Paying for undelivered goods; one gastropub reported approximately £600 in one month.
• Chasing credit notes weekly.
• Having no shared evidence when suppliers dispute shortages.
• Recording deliveries on paper, then re-entering them in Larder.

The café group explicitly says finding suppliers is not the problem; knowing what arrived is.

Evidence strength: Strong convergence across these two sources that this is a meaningful problem spanning multiple restaurant formats. Evidence for its prevalence across all 1,140 accounts, typical financial impact or the best solution remains limited. The £600 figure is one customer’s report, not an estimate we can extrapolate.

3. Marketplace interest exists, but “most customers want one” is unsupported

The pizzeria strongly wants more choice and better prices. Calder explicitly mentions a marketplace, but frames its need as getting every supplier onto the platform. The tapas bar expresses tentative interest, then prioritises paperwork.

Evidence strength: Directional evidence for supplier expansion, but weak evidence for broad marketplace demand. Only Calder explicitly advocates a marketplace; the pizzeria’s desired outcome could potentially be served in other ways. These excerpts do not establish expected adoption, switching behaviour or willingness to pay.

What we should build next quarter

Prioritise a narrow delivery-to-invoice pilot, rather than attempting full reconciliation automation immediately:

1. Capture actual receipt against an order: quantities received, shortages and substitutions, without duplicate entry.
2. Carry discrepancies forward: make them visible when checking invoices rather than leaving users to reconstruct events.
3. Track resolution: preserve a discrepancy record and show outstanding supplier responses or credits.

Start with observing receiving and invoice-checking in a varied set of independent restaurants. In particular, test whether busy staff will actually record discrepancies: the unchecked delivery-note example suggests software alone may not solve the problem.

Measure receiving-workflow adoption, duplicate entry, reconciliation time, discrepancies identified before payment and time to resolve credits. Establish baselines before setting numerical success targets; use pilot results to decide how far to expand.

Keep supplier coverage as a separate, bounded workstream. Clarify Calder’s required suppliers, onboarding feasibility and commercial commitment. Test targeted onboarding before assuming we need marketplace discovery, comparison and transaction capabilities.

Confidence and limits: This is a prioritisation recommendation, not a proven business case. Ten interview excerpts and self-selected support tickets cannot establish population prevalence. Some accounts also have inconsistent site counts in the export, so site-weighted conclusions would be unreliable. Validate the proposed workflow and its value before a broad rollout.

Synthesis: what customers need from Larder next (for the CPO)

Headline: The broadest and best-evidenced problem is that customers can't easily tell what actually arrived, and it costs them money and hours every week. Demand for "more suppliers" is real, but nearly all of it comes from one account. That account wants its own four suppliers connected, which is not the same as a marketplace. Next quarter we should build delivery check-in and discrepancy tracking, and handle Calder Group's request as a bounded onboarding project.

Finding 1: Delivery and invoice mismatches are the most widespread pain

Evidence: strong. It is consistent across both sources, comes from many accounts, and customers describe concrete costs.

• Tickets: "Delivery didn't match order" (34) and "Invoice reconciliation" (29) describe the same problem from two ends: ordered, received and invoiced don't line up. Together they account for 63 of 200 tickets (32%) from about 62 different accounts. By number of customers affected, this is our largest problem.
• Interviews: 8 of 10 describe it. Examples:
• About £600 lost in a month on undelivered items (gastropub).
• A finance team spending days every week chasing credit notes (hotel).
• Sunday nights reconciling invoices with a highlighter (bistro).
• Disputes with suppliers that can't be won without proof (bakery).
• Checking deliveries on a clipboard, then re-typing everything (noodle bar).
• Paying mismatched invoices because there's no time to check (steakhouse).

Finding 2: "Add more suppliers" is the top ticket category, but it is essentially one customer

Evidence: strong that the demand is concentrated; weak that there is broad demand for a marketplace.

- Calder Group's tickets: 75 tickets (37.5%) fall in this category, but 58 come from Calder Group alone. They repeatedly ask for the same four suppliers: - Brakes (15 tickets) - Their meat supplier (15) - Their dairy supplier (14) - Their wine merchant (14) They want suppliers they already use connected to Larder. They are not asking to discover new suppliers. - Everyone else: The remaining 17 tickets come from 17 accounts and are mostly generic ("Any plans for more suppliers?", "Would like more produce suppliers"). - Interviews: Only 2 of 10 clearly want this (the pizzeria and Calder). The tapas bar is lukewarm ("I suppose") and says paperwork is the real problem. The café group says outright that "finding suppliers isn't the problem."

The earlier claim that "most customers we spoke to want a marketplace" is not supported.

Finding 3: Calder is a real commercial opportunity of a specific kind

Evidence: moderate. This is one account's clear statement, untested.

• Calder has 14 sites and says it would move all its ordering to us if its suppliers were on the platform.
• We don't yet know how much of its ordering runs through Larder today or what the account is worth. We need that before sizing the effort.
• Their need is met by onboarding four named suppliers, not by building a marketplace.

Other signals

• Login and access (31 tickets) and ordering questions (31) look routine.
• One subset matters for the recommendation below: 10 tickets are "can't log in on tablet," and the tablet is where delivery check-in would happen.

Limits of this evidence

• Small interview sample. There are 10 interviews and we don't know how participants were chosen.
• One quarter of tickets. Ticket volume measures who contacts support, not who has the problem. Customers who silently pay wrong invoices, like the steakhouse, won't file tickets, so mismatch pain is probably under-counted.
• Data quality. Support staff assign the categories, and a few accounts show inconsistent site counts across tickets.
• No usage or revenue data yet. We can't weigh Calder against the long tail of smaller accounts.

What this means for next quarter

1. Build delivery check-in and discrepancy tracking. This is our core promise ("track deliveries and invoices") and is where the broad pain sits. Scope: - Check a delivery against the order at the door, on phone or tablet, replacing the clipboard and the re-typing. - Record shorts, substitutions and short weights, with a photo and timestamp to use as evidence in disputes. - Flag invoice lines that don't match what was received. - Raise credit notes and track them until they arrive. - Show credits in the accountant export (8 tickets ask for this). - Fix tablet login as part of the work.

Success measures: - Share of deliveries checked in. - £ of discrepancies recorded and credited. - Fewer tickets in the two mismatch categories. - Time spent on reconciliation, re-checked with these interviewees.

2. Treat Calder as an account project, not a platform bet. - Work with sales to confirm the account's value and how much of its ordering would move. - Then scope onboarding of the four requested suppliers. This is bounded work that doesn't require a marketplace.

3. Don't build a marketplace next quarter. - If we want to test demand, do it cheaply. Follow up with the 17 non-Calder accounts or run a fake-door test in the app. - Revisit with that data.