Sample mystery guest visit report
This is an illustrative example: the restaurant, visit and all figures are invented to show how a report is built. You will see one on your own venue after your free first audit.
Header
Fictional Armenian restaurant in central Yerevan, 60 covers indoors and a summer terrace.
Visit: Friday, 20:05-22:00. Guests: a couple, no booking. Room about 80% full on arrival.
Order: starters for two, tolma, khorovats, two glasses of red wine, coffee, dessert.
Scored against the client's standard, version dated 1 September 2026. Report checked by a methodologist.
The header shows the visit conditions at once. A full Friday evening and a quiet Tuesday give different figures and cannot be compared directly. The standard version is stated because the visit is scored by the rules in force on the audit day.
Total and blocks
Total: 79 out of 100.
Welcome and seating: 9/12. Menu introduction: 8/10. Recommendations and sales: 10/18. Service and pace: 17/20. Kitchen and bar: 16/16. Cleanliness: 8/8. Payment: 7/10. Farewell: 4/6.
3 items did not apply; they are listed at the end of the report.
The total shows the overall level; the blocks show where exactly money is lost. Here the kitchen and cleanliness were faultless, and the main loss was in recommendations and sales: the team cooks well but barely helps the guest choose.
Visit episodes
20:05. The hostess greeted the guests at the door and offered a table indoors or on the terrace. They chose indoors. Seating took 1 minute.
20:13. The waiter brought menus and water 7 minutes after seating, did not give his name or ask if the guests had been before. Item 'Getting to know the guest': 0/2.
20:21. The guest asked which wine would go with khorovats. The waiter replied 'all our wines are good' and suggested looking at the list. Item 'Wine pairing recommendation': 0/3.
21:34. Plates were cleared 2 minutes after the main course. Dessert was not offered; the guest asked for the dessert menu. Item 'Dessert offer': 0/2.
21:52. The bill came 7 minutes after the request, against a 5-minute target. Item 'Payment speed': 1/3.
Each remark is tied to a time and a point of the standard. The manager opens the rota and sees at once who was on the floor at the time.
Timeline
Welcome at the door: 0:30. Seating: 1:00. Menu and water on the table: 8:00. Order taken: 16:00. Wine: 22:00. Starters: 27:00. Main course: 45:00. Bill after request: 7:00.
Stage targets come from your standard. Two deviations stand out: menus on the table 7 minutes after seating against a 3-minute target, and the bill 7 minutes after the request. Comparing several shifts' timelines shows where the issue is people and where it is floor organisation.
Photographs
Photo 1: table setting at seating, 20:06. Photo 2: tolma served, 20:32. Photo 3: khorovats served, 20:50. Photo 4: receipt, 21:59.
Photos confirm what matters for the score: table setting, presentation, the receipt. Each is tied to an episode, so no one has to search a separate folder.
Methodologist's recommendations
1. Introduce a short greeting when menus are handed over: the waiter's name and whether the guests have been before. Practise it at the next staff meeting.
2. Give floor staff two wine pairings for each main course and test their knowledge at a team tasting.
3. Offer dessert and coffee when clearing main-course plates, without waiting for the guest to ask.
4. On Friday evenings, assign the payment terminal to the head waiter so the bill arrives within 5 minutes.
The recommendations relate to specific episodes of this visit. The report has no generic advice such as 'improve service quality'.
Action plan
Item: 'Wine pairing recommendation'. Cause: no list of recommendations on the floor. Action: two pairings per main course and a team tasting. Deadline: two weeks. Owner: floor manager.
Every item that lost points goes into the action plan in four columns: cause, action, deadline, owner. The manager fills in the plan with the team, and a repeat audit shows what has changed.
Items not applicable
Did not apply: booking confirmation (the guests had no booking), children's menu (no children), terrace service (the guests sat indoors).
Items not applicable add or subtract nothing: the total counts only those that applied. We show them next to the total so the score seems neither higher nor lower than it is. If booking handling matters to you, include it in the next visit's scenario or check it separately with a mystery call.
How the methodologist arrives at these figures is explained on the Methodology page.