{"id":"res-mgr-turnover-benchmark-picks","audience":"managers","category":"research","technique":"constraints","title":"Pick turnover benchmarks that actually match your restaurants","free":false,"task":"Your regional director wants your restaurants' turnover compared to a fair benchmark. From 6 sources, you want exactly 2 numbered picks that are US restaurant-industry data from 2025 or later with a stated method, each with its turnover figure and a reason under 15 words. Use only the details in your list, plain text, and nothing else.","materialLabel":"Your benchmark source list (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"TURNOVER BENCHMARKS - for Q4 review with Director Paula Kim\nOur 2026 hourly turnover (6 locations): 71%\n\n1. National Restaurant Workforce Survey 2026 - Hospitality Data Council. US restaurants, 1,900 operators surveyed. Hourly turnover: 74%. Method described in appendix.\n2. \"Why Everyone Is Quitting\" - podcast episode, 2026. Host says restaurant turnover is \"basically 100%.\" No data source given.\n3. Bureau-style quits data summary - Ostrand Labor Analytics, 2025. US accommodation and food services sector, based on monthly employer reports. Annual separations rate: 79%.\n4. UK Hospitality Staffing Report 2026 - British restaurants and pubs. Turnover: 62%. Survey of 800 venues.\n5. QuickServe Insider blog, 2026: \"turnover at fast casual chains is around 65%,\" citing \"industry chatter.\"\n6. Casual Dining Benchmark Study 2023 - Tablewise Research. US casual dining, 420 restaurants. Hourly turnover: 69%. Method described.\n\nNote: Paula specifically said \"no podcasts, no blogs, and nothing before 2025.\"","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":2},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Not stating the criteria","why":"The AI picks the most quotable numbers, like the UK report or the 2023 study, because they look rigorous.","fix":"Spell it out: \"US only, 2025 or later, with a stated method.\"","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Letting the AI add context","why":"The AI explains what each source likely found beyond your list.","fix":"Add: \"Use only the details in my list.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Getting an analysis","why":"The AI compares your 71% to every number and writes a verdict you didn't ask for.","fix":"Say: \"Output only the 2 picks, no comparison.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Not saying how many","why":"The AI decides the length itself and usually returns more picks than you can use.","fix":"Be exact: \"exactly 2 numbered picks.\"","checks":["numberedItems"]},{"title":"Getting markdown back","why":"AI defaults to bold labels and headings, which show up as stray symbols in a note to your director.","fix":"Ask for \"plain text, no bold, no headings.\"","checks":["plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Gives the criteria","patterns":["\\bUS\\b","2025","method","no (podcasts|blogs)"]},{"label":"Says exactly how many","patterns":["\\b(2|two)\\b.{0,25}(pick|source|benchmark)","exactly \\d+"]},{"label":"Asks for the figure","patterns":["figure","turnover (rate|number|%)","percent"]},{"label":"Limits each reason","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","one (short )?(sentence|line)"]},{"label":"Asks for plain text","patterns":["plain","no bold","no markdown","no formatting","no headings"]}],"hint":"A benchmark only helps if it compares like with like. Give the AI the exact bar a source must clear, and keep its reasons to what your list says.","rubricLabels":["The 2 picks are exactly sources 1 (Hospitality Data Council, 74%) and 3 (Ostrand Labor Analytics, 79%), the only US, 2025-or-later sources with a stated method","Each pick gives its turnover figure correctly and its reason uses only details from the list (scope, year, sample or method)","Outputs only the 2 numbered picks: no intro, no comparison to the team's 71%, no discussion of rejected sources"]}