The decision this workflow supports
A guest may report that a displayed price differs from another restaurant source. Treat the report as something to investigate, not proof that one price is binding or that the guest has misunderstood.
Put the review process in place
Capture the exact page or image and the item concerned. Ask the authorized menu owner to verify the current information, then update every affected public surface. Staff handle any question about a particular transaction; the website editor should not promise a refund or adjustment.
Worked example for your team
A fictional guest sends a screenshot of an older downloadable menu while the main page shows a newer owner-approved amount. Record where the screenshot came from and ask the menu owner to check both sources. The content task is to resolve the publication mismatch; any question about a purchase belongs with staff. After updating, repeat the guest’s original route to the old file. If it still presents outdated information without context, the correction is incomplete even though the homepage now looks right.
Sample wording to approve
“Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Please share which page and item you saw so the team can review the published information. Staff will address any question about your transaction.” This wording is a draft for the restaurant owner to approve before use.
Fields for the staff handoff
Staff need page or image URL, item name, reported difference, menu owner, and correction status. Mark uncertain details explicitly and keep the requested action separate from anything restaurant staff have already confirmed.
Acceptance tests before use
The report includes a reproducible location. The editor checks other copies before closing it. No financial remedy is promised by the content workflow. Record the observed result, assign any mismatch, and repeat the affected scenario after correction.
Further reading
Catering inquiry value calculator ↗
Try Ava with your business’s public information ↗