Sample Audit Findings · What You Actually Receive

This is what a RaiseTheCheck report looks like.

Real findings from a real evaluation. Every criterion referenced specifically. Every fix written in plain language. This is a partial extract — three findings from a 20+ finding audit of a South Florida diner specials board.

Important context

This is an extract from a real pre-launch validation audit. The restaurant's identity is kept confidential. The surface evaluated was a handwritten exterior whiteboard specials board. The findings below are three of 20+ actionable structural failures identified in a single evaluation session from two phone photos submitted in under five minutes. Your report will be formatted identically — every finding specific to your submitted surfaces, every fix written for your format.

Evaluation Summary

Handwritten Specials Board · Neighborhood Diner · South Florida

Surface: Exterior whiteboard mounted in window frame · Evaluated: April 2026

Overall Score
15/74
Grade
F
Structurally Impaired
Criteria evaluated: 37 of 48
Criteria passed: 5  ·  Criteria failed: 29  ·  N/A: 11
20+ actionable failures identified

Sample Findings — Three of 20+ Identified

C-01 · Decision Architecture ● FAIL
Paradox of Choice — Item Count
Criterion
No single surface should contain more than 7 items. Working memory holds approximately 7 items simultaneously. Categories or boards exceeding this threshold produce decision fatigue — the customer defaults to the familiar safe choice rather than exploring.
Finding
This specials board contains 18 distinct items across an undivided single surface. No categories. No headers. No grouping of any kind. The customer's working memory is overloaded from the first moment of contact. Every item added beyond 7 reduces the probability that any deliberate ordering decision is made.
HIGH IMPACT FAILURE
The Fix
Reduce the board to 6 items maximum. Recommended selection: your highest-margin breakfast item, your highest-margin lunch item, your signature item (Matzo Brie — see Finding C-06), one soup, one seasonal item, one beverage. Everything else moves to the printed inside menu. Erase and rewrite daily. The board is a spotlight, not a complete menu. A focused board sells more than a complete board — every time.
Research basis
Miller, G.A. (1956) "The Magical Number Seven" — Psychological Review. Chernev, A. — assortment complexity in food contexts, Northwestern Kellogg.
D-04 · Language and Copy ● FAIL
Price Presentation Format
Criterion
Prices should be presented in the format least likely to activate the pain of paying. Prices highlighted visually — through decoration, boxing, or emphasis — increase price salience and reduce willingness to order up. The price should be a quiet number adjacent to the item, not a visual focal point.
Finding
Two prices on this board — $13.99 and $14.99 — are displayed inside hand-drawn decorative hearts. The heart is the most visually prominent design element on the entire board. It makes the price the star of the show. The customer's eye is drawn to the cost before it is drawn to the food. This activates the neurological pain of paying response before any desire has been activated by the item description. Additionally, multiple items on the board have no price visible at all — the customer cannot evaluate those items without asking a server, which most will not do.
HIGH IMPACT FAILURE
The Fix
Write all prices in plain numerals directly adjacent to the item name. Remove the hearts entirely. Format: Item name — description — price. Example: Cinnamon Sugar French Toast · two eggs, bacon or sausage · 13.99. Note the absence of a dollar sign — numeral-only presentation reduces price salience measurably. Every item must have a visible price. No exceptions. A customer who cannot determine the price without asking will not ask. They will order something else.
Research basis
Loewenstein, G. — pain of paying and price salience. Dooley, R. — currency symbol neuromarketing research. Cornell University Center for Hospitality Research — menu price format study.
E-06 · Profit Engineering ● FAIL
Signature Item Designation
Criterion
At least one item on every surface must be explicitly designated as the house signature, best seller, or chef's recommendation. The designation must be specific — a named item, not a category. Signature designations activate social proof and scarcity responses simultaneously, increasing order frequency for the designated item by a measurable margin.
Finding
No item on this board carries any signature designation. This is a significant missed opportunity because the house specialty is clearly visible — Matzo Brie appears in four variations (plain, with onions, with nova and onions, with salami) at prices ranging from $11.99 to $14.99. The four-variation structure communicates that this is the kitchen's primary offering. It is never named as such. A customer unfamiliar with Matzo Brie has no signal that this is the item to order. A customer familiar with it has no confirmation that this version is the best version. The signature is invisible.
HIGH IMPACT FAILURE
The Fix
Designate the Matzo Brie with Nova and Onions as the house signature explicitly. On the board write: ★ House Signature — Matzo Brie with Nova & Onions · 14.99. The star symbol, written in a contrasting marker color, serves as the designation signal. Place it first among the Matzo Brie variations. This single change applies social proof pressure to every customer who reads the board — they now know what the kitchen is proud of and what other customers order. On your reduced 6-item board, the signature item occupies position one.
Research basis
Cialdini, R. — social proof and authority signals. Zajonc, R. — mere exposure effect and cumulative preference. Cornell University Center for Hospitality Research — signature item order frequency studies.
Revenue Impact — These Three Findings Alone

Implementing these three corrections on a board that sees 60–80 covers per day:

Item count reduction from 18 to 6 — estimated 8–12% increase in deliberate ordering decisions. At $14 average check: +$4,100–$6,100 annually.

Price presentation correction — removing price emphasis estimated to reduce price-led ordering by 15–20%. Customers order what they want rather than what costs least: +$2,800–$3,800 annually.

Signature designation of the highest-margin item — social proof effect estimated 20–30% increase in Matzo Brie with Nova orders: +$1,800–$2,400 annually.

Three findings. Zero cost to implement. Estimated annual impact: $8,700–$12,300. This is a partial extract from a 20+ finding report.

Your full report includes

All findings in this format — specific, cited, and fixed
48-point scored evaluation across all submitted surfaces
Revenue impact model built from your actual numbers
30/60/90 day milestones for tracking improvement
Trust and hygiene flags — spelling, pricing, QR codes
Delivered within 24 hours of payment confirmation

Ready to see what your menu is leaving on the table?

Place Your Order — $579

If we don't find at least 5 actionable improvements — full refund within 3 business days.