Extract discovery insights

Synthesis for the CPO

Headline

The evidence points more strongly to a delivery-reconciliation problem than to a general marketplace need. Supplier coverage matters—especially to Calder Group—but the interviews suggest the bigger day-to-day pain is knowing what arrived, resolving discrepancies, and matching invoices and credits. Build toward that workflow next quarter; treat a broad marketplace as an unproven solution.

Findings and evidence

1. Receiving and invoice reconciliation are recurring operational pains. — Moderate evidence Eight of the ten interview excerpts raise delivery checking, discrepancies, invoice matching, credit notes, or the paperwork around them. Examples include paying for undelivered goods, learning about short deliveries only when the invoice arrives, and re-entering clipboard checks into Larder. Several customers describe financial impact or repeated manual work. The support export also contains tickets in both “Delivery didn’t match order” and “Invoice reconciliation.”

This is a consistent signal across the interviews, but ten excerpts cannot establish how common the problem is across Larder’s 1,140 accounts or which part of the workflow is most valuable to solve first.

2. Supplier availability is a genuine need, but the ticket count overstates its breadth. — Moderate evidence for demand; weak evidence for a marketplace “Add more suppliers” is the largest ticket category: 75 of 200 tickets. But 58 of those tickets—most of the category—come from one customer, Calder Group. The remaining 17 are from other accounts, so supplier coverage is not solely a Calder concern, but ticket volume is not evidence that most customers want a marketplace. Calder’s 14 sites and stated intent to move all ordering to Larder make its request strategically important; it is still one account.

The interviews echo that distinction: the pizzeria wants more choice and better prices, and Calder explicitly wants every supplier on-platform. But another multi-site operator says finding suppliers is not the problem, and the tapas bar says paperwork is what hurts day to day.

3. A marketplace is a proposed solution, not a validated priority. — Weak evidence The evidence supports specific supplier gaps and some appetite for choice, but does not show that customers broadly want a marketplace, what marketplace model they mean, or whether it would resolve their more frequent receiving and reconciliation problems. The draft’s conclusion goes beyond what these sources can establish.

What to build next quarter

Prioritize a focused delivery-to-invoice reconciliation improvement: make it easier to record what was received, flag shortages and substitutions against the order, and carry discrepancies through to invoice matching and credit-note tracking. Test the workflow with customers who describe these pains before committing to a larger build.

In parallel, follow up with Calder and a few other customers requesting suppliers. Assess targeted supplier onboarding or integrations for the specific suppliers they need; do not assume this requires a general-purpose marketplace. Use the quarter to measure how widespread each problem is across distinct accounts and whether improved reconciliation reduces manual work and unresolved discrepancies.

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.

Synthesis for the CPO: prioritise delivery-to-invoice accuracy, not a marketplace

Recommendation: Next quarter, prioritise a lightweight workflow for recording what arrived, resolving discrepancies and tracking credits. Continue targeted supplier onboarding, but do not commit to a supplier marketplace on this evidence.

Main findings and evidence strength

1. Delivery discrepancies and reconciliation are the clearest recurring customer problem

Eight of ten interviewees describe problems spanning delivery checking, missing items, substitutions, invoice matching, disputes or paperwork. These problems have concrete consequences: the gastropub reports paying roughly £600 for undelivered goods last month; the bistro spends Sunday evening reconciling documents; the hotel’s finance team chases credits weekly. These are self-reported examples, not verified savings estimates.

The ticket export independently supports this pattern:

Delivery and reconciliation together account for 63 tickets from 62 distinct accounts. Treating them as one related workflow reveals a broader account-level signal than supplier requests.

Evidence strength: Strong evidence of a recurring problem among the customers represented, supported by both interviews and tickets. Moderate evidence for prioritising it across the customer base: ten interviews and support contacts are not representative measures of prevalence among all 1,140 accounts. We also cannot yet tell which part of the workflow offers the greatest benefit.

2. Supplier coverage matters, but ticket volume overstates the breadth of demand

“Add more suppliers” is the largest individual category, at 75 of 200 tickets. However, 58 of those 75 tickets—77%—come from Calder Group, one 14-site account, repeatedly requesting four named suppliers. The remaining 17 tickets come from 17 accounts.

That concentration matters. Repeated requests demonstrate an unresolved, potentially important need for Calder; they do not represent 58 independent customers. Calder is also larger than Larder’s typical independent restaurant account. Its commercial importance should be assessed separately rather than inferred from ticket volume.

Evidence strength: Strong evidence that Calder needs broader coverage, and credible evidence of interest from other accounts. Weak evidence that supplier expansion is the most widespread customer need.

3. Supplier coverage is not the same as a marketplace

The pizzeria explicitly wants more choice and better prices. Calder explicitly requests a marketplace, but its stated goal—ordering from every supplier in one place—could also be addressed by onboarding its existing suppliers. The tapas bar expresses only qualified interest and prioritises paperwork; the café group says finding suppliers is not the problem.

Thus, two interviewees express clear enthusiasm, not “most customers.” Most supplier tickets ask for named existing suppliers or “more suppliers”; they do not establish demand for discovery, comparison or transacting with new suppliers.

Evidence strength: Limited evidence for a marketplace specifically. The evidence does not establish likely adoption, willingness to pay or the supply-side requirements for making it useful.

What we should build next quarter

Make delivery-to-invoice accuracy the main product investment. Begin with a focused pilot covering:

• Recording actual quantities received, shortages and substitutions at delivery, without retyping clipboard records.
• Preserving a discrepancy record and supporting evidence that can be shared with suppliers.
• Showing differences between ordered, received and invoiced items, with outstanding credits tracked through resolution.

Validate the workflow with independent and small multi-site restaurants before scaling. Prioritise the smallest useful end-to-end slice rather than assuming full reconciliation automation is necessary.

Measure delivery-recording adoption, time spent reconciling, unresolved discrepancy age and credit-resolution time against pilot baselines. Validate reported financial benefits rather than extrapolating the £600 anecdote.

Keep supplier coverage as a bounded parallel effort. Assess onboarding Calder’s four requested suppliers and the associated retention or expansion opportunity. Separately test whether other restaurants primarily need existing-supplier coverage or genuinely want to discover and switch suppliers.

Reconsider a marketplace only after broader, account-level research and behavioural tests demonstrate demand beyond Calder. Continue addressing ordering and access issues, each responsible for 31 tickets; this recommendation is a prioritisation decision, not evidence that those basics are solved.