order-accuracy

---
name: order-accuracy
description: Turns your kitchen's pass routine, your platform's own compensation terms and your run of past complaints into a written system that stops wrong-item, missing-item and wrong-allergen refunds: a pre-dispatch check log naming who checked each bag against the ticket, an incident log with a cause code and the cost allocation your platform's own published terms set for it, a written remedy position under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and a dated one-page process for the pass. Use when refunds for wrong or missing items are eating into your delivery margin and nobody has written down who checks the bag before it leaves the kitchen.
---

# A checked bag, a logged cause, and a refund that lands where your platform's own terms say it should

You give this your current order-checking routine if you have one, your platform's own published compensation and refund terms, and your run of recent wrong-item, missing-item and wrong-allergen complaints. You get back a check log naming who verified every bag against the ticket before it left, an incident log that assigns a cause to each complaint and traces the cost to the exact clause that allocates it, a written statement of what the Consumer Rights Act 2015 entitles a customer to when an order arrives wrong, and a one page process the pass can run from tonight. It will not tell you what a typical wrong-order rate is. No published figure exists for a single independent UK venue, and an owner who measures a real problem against a borrowed percentage will decide it is normal and stop fixing it.

## What it does

1. **Fix what "wrong" means in law before you write a single process step.** Three implied terms do the work. Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states "every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory," judged by "the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory," and satisfactory quality expressly includes "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied" and "freedom from minor defects." Section 10 adds that where the consumer has made known "any particular purpose for which the consumer is contracting for the goods," including a stated allergy, "the contract is to be treated as including a term that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose." Section 11 requires that "every contract to supply goods by description is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the description," which is what turns a wrong item, a wrong quantity or a substituted ingredient into a breach, and a missing item is simply a partial non-delivery of what was described. Write these three tests on the wall of the pass: they are what a court would use, not a platform's marketing language about "order accuracy."

2. **Put a real check into the pass, not a policy about one.** The Food Standards Agency's guidance on food delivery states the general duty plainly: "All food must be delivered to consumers in a way that ensures that it does not become unsafe or unfit to eat." It does not prescribe a checking method, which is exactly why most kitchens never build one. Design a physical step between the last dish landing on the pass and the bag leaving the building: one named person reads the printed ticket against the containers in the bag, confirms the count, confirms the allergen label on every container that needs one, and only then seals it. This is the same moment packaging-spec settles which item carries the tamper seal, so do not design the check independently of that seal, and do not let the person who built the order be the only person who checks it.

3. **Design the remedy around what the law actually gives, not around what feels generous.** Section 19(3) sets the sequence: a major breach gives the consumer "the short-term right to reject," then "the right to repair or replacement," then "the right to price reduction or the final right to reject." Section 22 sets the short-term right's clock at "the end of 30 days," but adds the clause that matters for food: goods that "can reasonably be expected to perish after a shorter period" get that shorter period instead. A missing curry perishes, in this sense, within the length of the meal, so the short-term right to reject is real in law and effectively unusable in practice. The remedies that fit are repeat performance under section 23, requiring the trader to act "within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer," meaning resend the missing item while the meal is still happening, and price reduction under section 24, which lets the consumer "require the trader to reduce by an appropriate amount the price," including "the full amount" where appropriate. Build your written policy around resend-or-refund, because that is what the statute points at for a good that perishes fast.

4. **Read your own platform's cost allocation before you decide who pays for what you just fixed.** The Act decides what the customer is entitled to; the platform's own terms decide who, between you and the platform, funds it. Deliveroo's published Customer compensation policy sorts complaints in two lists. The partner bears the cost for "Missing or unavailable item in an order," "Incorrect order handed to the rider," "Wrong items in an order," "Faulty or poor quality items in an order," and "Orders prepared incorrectly or to a poor quality, including food safety claims." Deliveroo bears the cost for "Order spilled or damaged in transit," "Cold food," and "Order not delivered to the customer." The dividing line is exact: everything wrong before the rider took the bag is yours, everything after is theirs. Deliveroo's Partners Terms also require "reasonable endeavours to ensure that no more than 1% of Delivery Orders contain errors." Uber Eats splits the same way in different words: the merchant is "responsible for ensuring that the Items meet the applicable Criteria," and its own guidance states Uber "may deduct refunds (including the Substandard Item Delivery Fee) from the Item Revenue transmitted to Merchant," while the merchant "retain[s] the full Uber service fee for the entire order." Copy your own platform's actual clause rather than assuming it matches these; Just Eat's own terms sit behind a partner login and were not publicly reachable, so get your own signed copy.

5. **Build the incident log with a cause, not just a complaint.** A refund total tells you what it cost. A cause code tells you what to fix. Record every complaint against a short fixed list: the ticket was misread, the wrong bag was handed to the wrong rider, the platform's menu listing did not match what the kitchen makes, a recipe was substituted without the label being updated, or the cause could not be established. A month sorted this way usually shows one or two causes doing most of the damage, which is a training fix or a ticket redesign, not a reason to distrust the whole channel.

6. **Treat evidence as part of the process, not as an afterthought when a dispute arrives.** Uber's guidance to merchants states a claim typically needs "photo proof (in many cases)" and merchants can dispute a refund "within 30 days via the Orders tab in Uber Eats Manager," while Deliveroo's compensation policy gives a partner the right to dispute by logging "into Hub within 7 days of our refund email notification." Both windows start the moment the platform notifies you, not when you notice the deduction. A photo of the sealed, labelled bag taken as part of the check in step 2 is the only evidence that exists before a dispute happens, and it decides whether a wrongly allocated refund gets reversed or simply absorbed.

7. **Never let a wrong or missing allergen item travel through the ordinary refund path.** allergen-on-delivery already settles the matrix, the label wording and who reads a customer's allergy note on each platform's ordering screen. This skill's job is narrower: if the check in step 2 finds the wrong allergen label, or the incident log records a wrong-allergen complaint, that order is stopped and remade, never simply refunded and sent, and it still gets a cause code. A wrong-item refund is a cost. A wrong-allergen item that reaches a customer is a safety event that happens to also have one.

8. **Keep the cancellation right out of this file, because it answers a different question.** The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 exempt from the cancellation right "goods which are liable to deteriorate or perish rapidly," which is why a customer cannot change their mind about a correctly delivered curry. own-ordering covers that exemption for your own website's checkout. It has nothing to do with this file: an order that arrives wrong is a breach of the description and quality terms in step 1, and the remedies in step 3 apply whether or not any cancellation right ever existed. Keep the two Acts, and the two skills, in their own lanes.

9. **Hand the check log, the incident log and your copied clauses to Codex so nothing gets typed twice.** Every judgement is already made: the cause code, the evidence, the cost allocation and your written remedy are yours. Run:

   ```
   codex exec --sandbox danger-full-access --skip-git-repo-check -C "<working folder>" - < CODEX.md
   ```

   Claude hands over the order-check log entries, the incident records with their cause codes and evidence, the cost allocation copied from your platform's own terms, and your written remedy for each complaint type. Codex returns the check log, the incident log, a cause code summary, a cost allocation summary by platform, the remedy position file and a gaps file naming every entry it was not given enough to complete. Codex assigns no cause code and allocates no cost that was not supplied.

10. **Write the one page process, date it, and set the triggers that make it stale.** One side of A4 for the pass: who checks, against what, what gets sealed and labelled first, what happens when a discrepancy is found before the bag leaves, and what happens when a complaint arrives after. Put the build date in the footer and the date each platform clause was read. Reopen it when a menu changes, a platform is added, or packaging-spec or allergen-on-delivery change under it, because a check built for last year's containers is checking the wrong thing.

## Then it checks

1. Every incident in the log carries a complaint type from the fixed list and a cause code, and any incident with no cause established is marked `not_established` and counted, never left blank.
2. Every incident's cost allocation traces to a named clause in the specific platform's own published terms or compensation policy, with its URL and the date it was read, and no allocation is assumed from memory or from a different platform's terms.
3. Every order-check log entry names the person who checked it and records the ticket item count against the packed item count, with no entry reading only "checked."
4. Every wrong-allergen finding is marked as stopped and remade rather than refunded and sent, with no exception recorded anywhere in the file.
5. Every disputed incident states whether it was raised inside the platform's own stated window, Deliveroo's 7 days or Uber Eats' 30 days as applicable, and what the outcome was.
6. The file contains no typical wrong-order rate, no industry refund percentage and no average error rate that was not counted directly from the owner's own logs.

Any check fails: name it, redo that step once. Failed twice: say what is wrong and stop.

## Rules
- Public information only.
- Never invent a fact, a number or a quote.
- Anything sent in someone's name says whose name it is.
- Never state a typical wrong-order rate, a typical refund percentage, or an industry error rate for independent UK venues. No published figure exists for a single independent UK venue, the numbers that circulate come from platforms and ordering software vendors describing the whole network, and an owner who compares a real problem to a borrowed average will treat a genuine training gap as normal and stop fixing it.
- Never assume which party bears the cost of a refund from memory or from a different platform's terms. Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat allocate differently, a merchant's own signed agreement can differ from the published terms, and the only correct source is the clause itself, read and dated.
- Never treat a wrong-allergen complaint as an ordinary refund. It is logged with a cause like every other incident, but the order is stopped and remade, not sent as is and settled afterwards with money.
- Never use the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 cancellation right to answer a wrong-order question. It governs a customer changing their mind and is exempted for perishable food; a wrong or missing item is a Consumer Rights Act conformity question, and the two must not be merged.
- Never let the order-check step exist only as a written policy. Log every check for the period the file covers: an unlogged check cannot be told apart from one that never happened, and that is the gap a dispute gets decided against.
- This output is a working document prepared for the owner to check against their own platform agreements and their own logs, and for their accountant on the refund cost and their solicitor on the contract terms. It applies published rules and the owner's own figures to a draft process. It is not legal advice, it is not a ruling on any individual complaint, and it is not an interpretation of any merchant agreement.

## Built from
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, sections 9, 10 and 11, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/9, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/10 and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11, read 23 September 2026: satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and matching description, in step 1.
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, sections 19, 20 and 22, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/20 and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/22, read 23 September 2026: the remedy sequence and the perishable exception to the 30 day short-term right to reject, in step 3.
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, sections 23 and 24, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23 and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/24, read 23 September 2026: repeat performance and price reduction, the remedies that fit a perishable good, in step 3.
- Deliveroo, "Deliveroo Partners Terms and Conditions", https://merchants.deliveroo.com/en-GB/legal/terms, page states last updated 14 January 2021, read 23 September 2026: the 1% order error standard in step 4.
- Deliveroo, "Customer compensation policy (previously 'Complaints Matrix')", https://merchants.deliveroo.com/en-GB/legal/policies#compensation, no separate date on the compensation section, read 23 September 2026: the partner-pays and Deliveroo-pays lists in step 4, and the 7 day Hub dispute window in step 6.
- Uber, "Uber Eats Merchant Terms and Conditions" (Great Britain), https://www.uber.com/gb/en/legal/uber-eats-merchant-terms-and-conditions/, last modified 16 June 2025, read 23 September 2026: the merchant's responsibility for Item criteria and the Substandard Item Delivery Fee deduction, in step 4.
- Uber, "Managing refunds for missing or incorrect orders" and "Wrong or missing items", https://help.uber.com/merchants-and-restaurants/article/managing-refunds-for-missing-or-incorrect-orders and https://help.uber.com/en-GB/ubereats/restaurants/article/wrong-or-missing-items, no date shown on either page, read 23 September 2026: the retained service fee and evidence guidance, in steps 4 and 6.
- The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, regulation 28, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/28/made, read 23 September 2026: the perishable goods cancellation exemption, distinguished from the Consumer Rights Act question, in step 8.
- Food Standards Agency and GOV.UK, "Food safety for food delivery", https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-safety-for-food-delivery/food-safety-for-food-delivery, published 26 March 2020, read 23 September 2026: the duty that food must be delivered in a way that keeps it safe and fit to eat, in step 2.

# order-accuracy

## You are given
The order-check log entries kept, or newly started, by one UK hospitality business for its delivery service, each with a date, a shift reference, the platform, the order reference, the name of the person who checked the bag, the number of items on the printed ticket, the number of items actually packed, whether the allergen label was checked, whether a seal was applied, and the result of the check. The incident records for wrong item, missing item, wrong quantity, wrong allergen label, wrong address, quality, spillage, cold or late, and non-delivery complaints, each already assigned a cause by the owner, marked for whether evidence was held and what kind, and carrying the refund amount and the amount actually deducted from the owner's payment. The cost allocation copied by the owner from their own platform's published terms or compensation policy for each complaint type, stating for that specific platform whether the platform or the partner bears the cost, with the clause and its source document named. The owner's written remedy for each complaint type, already decided and stated in the owner's own words, together with which Consumer Rights Act remedy category it corresponds to as the owner has classified it. A record of every dispute raised, the platform's own stated dispute window in days, and the outcome. All judgement calls, including the cause assigned to every incident, the cost allocation for every platform, and the remedy offered for every complaint type, have already been made by the owner and are supplied to you.

## Produce
Write into a `./order-accuracy-output/` folder:

1. `order-check-log.csv` with these columns in this order: `check_ref`, `date`, `shift_ref`, `platform`, `order_ref`, `checked_by`, `ticket_items_count`, `packed_items_count`, `allergen_label_checked`, `seal_applied`, `match_result`, `discrepancy_type`, `corrective_action_taken`, `time_logged`. `platform` is exactly one of `deliveroo`, `uber_eats`, `just_eat`, `own_website`, `phone`, `other`. `match_result` is exactly one of `match`, `discrepancy_corrected_before_dispatch`, `discrepancy_dispatched_wrong`. `discrepancy_type` is exactly one of `none`, `missing_item`, `wrong_item`, `wrong_quantity`, `wrong_allergen_label`, `wrong_address_label`, `other`. `allergen_label_checked` and `seal_applied` are `yes` or `no`. A `TOTAL` row carries the count of checks and the count of each `match_result` value.
2. `incident-log.csv` with columns: `incident_ref`, `date`, `platform`, `order_ref`, `complaint_type`, `cause_code`, `item_ref_affected`, `item_name_verbatim`, `evidence_held`, `evidence_type`, `refund_amount_gbp`, `platform_cost_allocation`, `cost_actually_deducted_gbp`, `disputed`, `dispute_window_days`, `disputed_within_window`, `dispute_outcome`, `source_document`. `complaint_type` is exactly one of `missing_item`, `wrong_item`, `wrong_quantity`, `wrong_allergen_label`, `wrong_address`, `quality_issue`, `spilled_or_crushed`, `cold_or_late`, `not_delivered`, `other`. `cause_code` is exactly one of `kitchen_pack_error`, `ticket_misread`, `menu_mismatch_on_platform`, `allergen_mislabel`, `wrong_bag_handed_to_rider`, `recipe_substitution_not_updated`, `rider_error`, `platform_error`, `customer_error_claimed`, `not_established`. `evidence_held` is `yes` or `no`. `evidence_type` is exactly one of `photo_of_bag`, `photo_of_ticket`, `cctv`, `staff_statement`, `none`. `platform_cost_allocation` is exactly one of `platform_bears_cost`, `partner_bears_cost`, `not_stated_in_terms`. `disputed` and `disputed_within_window` are `yes`, `no` or `not applicable`. `dispute_outcome` is exactly one of `upheld_refund_reversed`, `rejected`, `pending`, `not_disputed`. Every row with `platform_cost_allocation` equal to `not_stated_in_terms` is listed in `gaps.md`.
3. `cause-code-summary.csv` with columns: `cause_code`, `incident_count`, `total_refund_amount_gbp`, `total_cost_deducted_gbp`, `most_common_complaint_type`. One row per cause code present in `incident-log.csv`, counted and summed directly from that file, in descending order of `incident_count`.
4. `cost-allocation-summary.csv` with columns: `platform`, `incident_count`, `count_platform_bears_cost`, `count_partner_bears_cost`, `count_not_stated_in_terms`, `total_cost_deducted_gbp`, `count_disputed`, `count_disputed_within_window`, `count_dispute_upheld`. One row per platform present in `incident-log.csv`, counted and summed directly from that file.
5. `remedy-position.csv` with columns: `complaint_type`, `owner_written_remedy_verbatim`, `cra_remedy_category_supplied`, `short_term_reject_applicable`, `perishable_exception_applies`, `source_document`. `cra_remedy_category_supplied` is exactly one of `repair_or_replacement`, `price_reduction`, `final_right_to_reject`, `not_offered`. `short_term_reject_applicable` and `perishable_exception_applies` are `yes` or `no`. One row per complaint type the owner has supplied a remedy for; any complaint type present in `incident-log.csv` with no matching row here is listed in `gaps.md`.
6. `gaps.md` a numbered list of: every order-check log row with no name in `checked_by`; every incident with `cause_code` equal to `not_established`; every incident where `evidence_held` is `no` and the incident was disputed; every incident where `platform_cost_allocation` is `not_stated_in_terms`; every incident disputed with `disputed_within_window` equal to `no`; every complaint type in `incident-log.csv` with no corresponding row in `remedy-position.csv`; and any figure the owner supplied without a date.

## Rules
- Codex counts, sorts, sums and records. It never assigns a cause code, never decides a cost allocation, never classifies a remedy against the Consumer Rights Act, and never decides whether an item is a wrong-allergen safety event. Those were supplied.
- Never estimate a missing figure. An incident with no supplied refund amount has an empty `refund_amount_gbp` cell and a line in `gaps.md`. A part-supplied cause code summary reports only what the supplied rows contain.
- Never write a typical wrong-order rate, an industry refund percentage, an average error rate or any benchmark into any file. No such figure exists for a single independent UK venue and none is to be recorded.
- Never carry a cost allocation, a cause code or a remedy forward from an earlier period or an earlier platform version into a later one. Each incident uses the allocation the owner supplied for that platform at that time; an earlier figure may be recorded in a separate note and never used in a calculation.
- Never mark a wrong-allergen incident as resolved by refund alone. `complaint_type` equal to `wrong_allergen_label` is always counted, and the file records the supplied cause code and cost allocation exactly like any other row, but Codex adds no note implying the refund is a sufficient resolution.
- Use British English, GBP written as `GBP` or the pound sign, and DD Month YYYY dates. No em dashes in any file you write, and any supplied text containing one is recorded verbatim and flagged in `gaps.md`.
- Every platform name, clause reference, cause code and remedy wording is copied exactly as supplied, including its punctuation and capitalisation.
- Every file ends with this line: this is a working document prepared for the owner to check against their own platform agreements and logs, and for their accountant and solicitor to check before it is relied on. It applies supplied figures to a draft process and is not legal advice, a ruling on any complaint, or an interpretation of any merchant agreement.

## Return
The absolute path of every file written, the row count of each CSV, the total number of checks logged and the count of each `match_result` value, the total number of incidents and the count of each `complaint_type`, the cause code with the highest `incident_count` and its total cost, the total refund amount and total cost actually deducted across all incidents, the count of incidents where `platform_cost_allocation` is `partner_bears_cost` against `platform_bears_cost` and against `not_stated_in_terms`, the count of disputes raised within the platform's stated window against outside it and their outcomes, and the `gaps.md` item count.