How to choose a first location
Compare demand, competition, Traffic Index, capacity and rent in the right order.
Decision first
Prefer the smallest affordable unit that supports useful capacity and leaves enough cash to stock and staff it.
A lease combines neighborhood demand, competition, traffic, building limit, floor plan, rent, and operating access; no single field represents location quality.
Define the business first.
Complete operating playbook
- ARTICLE LENGTH
- 5,813 words
- DEEP-DIVE SECTIONS
- 15
- RESEARCH LEDGER
- 5
Define the location decision
A lease combines neighborhood demand, competition, traffic, building limit, floor plan, rent, and operating access; no single field represents location quality.
Developer replies explicitly separate traffic from capacity and place demand, competition, promotion, satisfaction, and business type in the realized-customer calculation.
Procedure: name the intended business; list its primary products; choose candidate neighborhoods; inventory vacant leases; compare complete operating economics
Example: A high-traffic micro-store and a moderate-traffic thirty-cap store can reverse rank depending on expected demand and affordable fixtures. The correct choice depends on the planned operation.
If a ranking uses traffic alone, it has omitted the ceiling and the cost of reaching it. Inspect neighborhood, demand basket, competitors, traffic, building cap, area, rent, and fit-out burden before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record one row per lease with every field captured at the same in-game time in BizMan. Use neighborhood, demand basket, competitors, traffic, building cap, area, rent, and fit-out burden only when its controls remain comparable.
Market and vacancy conditions are save-specific, while custom difficulty can alter customer multipliers and economics. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Turn the observation into a trigger. Continue while neighborhood, demand basket, competitors, traffic, building cap, area, rent, and fit-out burden stays inside the chosen range, invoke eliminate infeasible sites at the boundary, and reconsider the larger plan only after estimate operating contribution fails. Written triggers make repeated decisions consistent across in-game weeks.
Start the property sheet with the intended business and basket, because a lease cannot be scored independently of what it must hold. A compact gift layout and a multi-station food operation assign radically different value to the same floor plan.
Action checklist
- Define the business first.
- Capture all candidate fields.
- Eliminate infeasible sites.
- Estimate operating contribution.
- Retain a runner-up.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| define the business first | neighborhood, demand basket, competitors, traffic, building cap, area, rent, and fit-out burden supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | capture all candidate fields |
| eliminate infeasible sites | one row per lease with every field captured at the same in-game time is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | estimate operating contribution |
| retain a runner-up | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in define the location decision. |
Lock Market Insider to the correct neighborhood
Build 3672 fixed Market Insider so it opens on the player's current neighborhood, but a deliberate location study should still verify the selected district.
The official hotfix identifies wrong-neighborhood opening as a real defect, making district verification an evidence-quality step rather than clerical fuss.
Procedure: select the district explicitly; capture its name; record product demand; record providers; repeat for every candidate district
Example: The player stands near a Midtown lease after inspecting Garment District. Without confirming the header, a correct demand screenshot can still be attached to the wrong property.
When actual sales contradict reconnaissance, first audit whether demand data came from the leased neighborhood. Inspect selected Market Insider neighborhood and timestamp before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record district name beside every demand and provider observation, never in a detached note in BizMan. Use selected Market Insider neighborhood and timestamp only when its controls remain comparable.
The bug is fixed in Build 3672/3674, but users on older builds or imported notes can still carry contaminated comparisons. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Compare a survival case with an upside case, keeping district name beside every demand and provider observation, never in a detached note explicit in both. The first asks whether the operation remains solvent after verify the district header; the second asks whether refresh has room to add value. A plan that works only under upside assumptions is not ready.
After opening Market Insider, read the neighborhood name or copy it into the candidate row before recording demand. This prevents a valid Midtown observation from being attached to a Garment District address after switching map views.
Action checklist
- Verify the district header.
- Capture demand and providers.
- Link data to the address.
- Discard ambiguous screenshots.
- Refresh.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| verify the district header | selected Market Insider neighborhood and timestamp supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | capture demand and providers |
| link data to the address | district name beside every demand and provider observation, never in a detached note is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | discard ambiguous screenshots |
| refresh | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in lock market insider to the correct neighborhood. |
Read demand as a basket
A business succeeds through the products customers can actually buy, not through the highest single demand percentage on the screen. Keeping the sequence intact gives each change one plausible explanation.
Competition and product-specific demand affect realized customers, and source tiers can prevent an attractive item from being available in the first week.
Procedure: list all primary products; mark current source access; record demand and providers; identify a viable opening subset; reject one-number conclusions
Example: A candidate has one exceptional row but its other primary goods are weak or unavailable. Another has several accessible products with solid demand. The second site has the more resilient opening basket.
If a shop has traffic but low transactions, inspect whether its stocked products correspond to the demand that justified the lease. Inspect accessible primary SKUs with acceptable demand and provider count before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record each SKU, demand, providers, current source, intended display capacity, and opening quantity in BizMan. Use accessible primary SKUs with acceptable demand and provider count only when its controls remain comparable.
Demand percentages are observations, not permanent forecasts; rivals and market events can change them. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Resolve reversible uncertainty before irreversible cost. enumerate the full basket can be tested for a short period, while a lease, broad fit-out, specialized hire, or large inventory position persists.
Convert the demand screen into a basket score: count accessible primary products above the chosen threshold, subtract products with several providers, and flag products whose source is locked. Keep the raw rows beside the score so the weighting remains inspectable.
Action checklist
- Enumerate the full basket.
- Mark source access.
- Count viable SKUs.
- Test overlap risk.
- Choose resilient demand.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| enumerate the full basket | accessible primary SKUs with acceptable demand and provider count supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | mark source access |
| count viable SKUs | each SKU, demand, providers, current source, intended display capacity, and opening quantity is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | test overlap risk |
| choose resilient demand | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in read demand as a basket. |
Separate traffic from customer capacity
Traffic contributes to customer flow, whereas the building limit is a hard hourly ceiling that cannot be exceeded. Reconciliation decides whether the apparent gain survives all recorded costs.
The developer states that realized customers use multiple factors and that a building maximum remains binding even when equipment provides more capacity.
Procedure: record traffic; record building limit; estimate likely customer volume; cost fixtures needed to reach the limit; compare marginal rent with usable headroom
Example: A fifteen-cap shop with excellent traffic may fill quickly but cannot grow past fifteen hourly customers. A thirty-cap site offers upside only if demand, fixtures, staff, and promotion can use it.
If marketing does not increase customers, check whether the business already reaches its structural or market ceiling. Inspect traffic index, building limit, current fixture capacity, and peak completed customers before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record all four values instead of collapsing them into one location score in BizMan. Use traffic index, building limit, current fixture capacity, and peak completed customers only when its controls remain comparable.
No official formula allows traffic and capacity to be multiplied into exact customers; such shortcuts are heuristics. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Audit every denominator. Write the denominator beside traffic index, building limit, current fixture capacity, and peak completed customers; otherwise a changing scale can masquerade as improvement.
Write traffic and capacity in separate columns. Traffic describes organic exposure; the building limit describes maximum hourly throughput. Never multiply them into forecast customers, because the developer identifies additional influences including business type, competition, promotion, and satisfaction.
Action checklist
- Record traffic separately.
- Record the hard cap.
- Cost capacity equipment.
- Estimate usable headroom.
- Reject invented formulas.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| record traffic separately | traffic index, building limit, current fixture capacity, and peak completed customers supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | record the hard cap |
| cost capacity equipment | all four values instead of collapsing them into one location score is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | estimate usable headroom |
| reject invented formulas | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in separate traffic from customer capacity. |
Estimate the cost of usable capacity
A large building limit has no commercial value until every required equipment category and relevant station can support it. The ordered branches make the first failing transaction step visible.
Developer examples show that the lowest equipment category limits the whole store, with the building ceiling applied afterward.
Procedure: open F1 and BizMan requirements; list every capacity-setting item; divide target capacity by item capacity; round quantities up; add staff and stock costs
Example: A thirty-cap clothing site requires enough capacity for every active clothing line, payment, baskets, and mandatory rooms. Cheap rent cannot offset an unaffordable complete fit-out.
If the current-capacity display is below the building limit, locate the smallest equipment row rather than adding random registers. Inspect capacity per equipment category and total fit-out cost before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record item capacity, quantity required, purchase price, footprint, employee need, and remaining cash in BizMan. Use capacity per equipment category and total fit-out cost only when its controls remain comparable.
Equipment values can change, and different formats have different required categories; use live tooltips. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Keep exception notes instead of smoothing them away. A stockout or rival action may invalidate an average yet expose weakness in calculate rounded quantities.
Price the fixture set before comparing rents. For every required category, divide target capacity by one fixture's displayed capacity and round upward; then add the cost and floor area of those quantities to the lease's true opening requirement.
Action checklist
- List every capacity category.
- Calculate rounded quantities.
- Cost the whole set.
- Verify footprint.
- Compare with expected demand.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| list every capacity category | capacity per equipment category and total fit-out cost supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | calculate rounded quantities |
| cost the whole set | item capacity, quantity required, purchase price, footprint, employee need, and remaining cash is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | verify footprint |
| compare with expected demand | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in estimate the cost of usable capacity. |
Rent, deposit, and runway
The correct rent is the one a fully funded operation can carry through a slow launch, not simply the lowest or highest available quote.
Official progression increased rents, especially warehouses, and 1.0 loan access depends more on demonstrated income.
Procedure: calculate fixed daily cost; calculate opening capital; reserve payroll and stock; model a conservative sales case; define an exit threshold
Example: A premium address leaves almost no stock cash. A cheaper block with slightly lower traffic opens fully supplied and survives several weak days, producing better expected results.
If a store is forced to understock or leave hours uncovered, the lease consumed capital needed to make its own location viable. Inspect daily rent, setup cost, residual cash, daily burn, and runway days before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record all committed and optional costs plus a low-sales scenario in BizMan. Use daily rent, setup cost, residual cash, daily burn, and runway days only when its controls remain comparable.
Do not use an old universal rent-to-revenue ratio because prices, wages, demand, and difficulty differ. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Test reproducibility from the record alone. If all committed and optional costs plus a low-sales scenario omits the neighborhood, hours, stock state, staffing, price, or costs needed to recreate the observation, add the missing field. More decimal places cannot compensate for missing operating conditions.
Stress-test the lease with three weak days and one emergency restock. If remaining cash cannot cover rent, scheduled wages, personal needs, and the next ordinary order, the address is undercapitalized regardless of its attractive traffic index.
Action checklist
- Compute full setup cash.
- Reserve operating money.
- Model weak sales.
- Set an exit trigger.
- Compare runway.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| compute full setup cash | daily rent, setup cost, residual cash, daily burn, and runway days supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | reserve operating money |
| model weak sales | all committed and optional costs plus a low-sales scenario is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | set an exit trigger |
| compare runway | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in rent, deposit, and runway. |
Floor plan and customer flow
Square metres do not guarantee usable retail space; doors, fixed walls, storage, bathrooms, queues, and required fixtures determine whether the plan works. The remaining uncertainty should appear in the record attached to usable fixture positions, queue clearance, storage access, and mandatory-room fit.
Official updates added bathroom areas to some building types and made sanitation or changing-room requirements commercially relevant.
Procedure: trace entrance to products; reserve queue space; reserve delivery and storage paths; place mandatory rooms; test the complete fixture count on the plan
Example: Two equal-area units differ because one forces customers and stock through the same narrow corridor. The cleaner rectangle supports capacity with fewer pathing risks.
If customers complain about queues or cannot reach stations, treat it as layout capacity rather than market weakness. Inspect usable fixture positions, queue clearance, storage access, and mandatory-room fit before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record a sketch or blueprint with each required object, capacity contribution, staff position, and aisle in BizMan. Use usable fixture positions, queue clearance, storage access, and mandatory-room fit only when its controls remain comparable.
Visual observation helps identify obstructions, but BizMan remains the authoritative capacity and satisfaction record. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Apply map customer flow, observe usable fixture positions, queue clearance, storage access, and mandatory-room fit, and reverse the change when its predicted mechanism does not appear. Scaling a weak signal multiplies uncertainty and cost together.
Sketch fixed walls, bathroom access, storage, customer aisles, and checkout queues on the candidate plan. Reject an arrangement that reaches nominal capacity only by blocking deliveries or leaving no practical room for required product fixtures.
Action checklist
- Map customer flow.
- Map stock flow.
- Reserve queue space.
- Fit mandatory rooms.
- Test the full layout.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| map customer flow | usable fixture positions, queue clearance, storage access, and mandatory-room fit supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | map stock flow |
| reserve queue space | a sketch or blueprint with each required object, capacity contribution, staff position, and aisle is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | fit mandatory rooms |
| test the full layout | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in floor plan and customer flow. |
Supplier and transport access
Early stores are supplied manually or by contracted delivery, so travel time and storage access can determine whether advertised hours remain stocked.
The official progression uses weekly supplier timing, unit orders, and later warehouse logistics, making source access a real location cost.
Procedure: identify the current source; time a realistic round trip; inspect parking and delivery access; estimate vehicle loads; cost emergency replenishment
Example: A cheaper shop requires repeated cross-city trips for a high-volume basket. A slightly higher rent near the source frees enough owner time to keep shelves full and recruit staff.
If the store repeatedly stocks out despite enough cash, measure travel, carrying capacity, order timing, and receiving space. Inspect supplier distance, round-trip time, loads per restock, storage capacity, and stockout hours before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record route duration under normal conditions, vehicle used, units moved, trips required, and missed tasks in BizMan. Use supplier distance, round-trip time, loads per restock, storage capacity, and stockout hours only when its controls remain comparable.
A later warehouse can reduce this disadvantage, so distinguish first-week convenience from long-run site quality. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
End with a pre-mortem. Assume the choice failed, then rank time the route, calculate load count, and inspect delivery access by how quickly each would explain the loss.
Time one real supplier round trip at the hour it would normally occur, including parking and loading. Multiply that duration by expected weekly loads; the resulting owner hours are part of location cost until warehouse logistics replace them.
Action checklist
- Identify source locations.
- Time the route.
- Calculate load count.
- Inspect delivery access.
- Price the logistics burden.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| identify source locations | supplier distance, round-trip time, loads per restock, storage capacity, and stockout hours supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | time the route |
| calculate load count | route duration under normal conditions, vehicle used, units moved, trips required, and missed tasks is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | inspect delivery access |
| price the logistics burden | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in supplier and transport access. |
Competition and self-cannibalization
More providers of the same products reduce available demand, including overlap created by the player's own nearby stores. That distinction determines which screen can verify competition and self-cannibalization.
The developer names product competition as a customer-volume factor, and rival systems can alter prices, demand, employees, and lease access.
Procedure: count current providers; identify their products and prices; include planned own stores; model an entry response; choose a differentiated basket or district
Example: Opening a second gift shop beside the first may divide demand rather than double profit. A different basket in the same area or the same basket elsewhere can preserve more total volume.
If two stores weaken after expansion, compare combined units and profit before assuming both locations independently failed. Inspect provider count, overlapping SKUs, rival prices, combined sales, and demand change before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record market state before lease, opening date, rival actions, and performance of every affected owned store in BizMan. Use provider count, overlapping SKUs, rival prices, combined sales, and demand change only when its controls remain comparable.
Rival behavior is dynamic; no fixed safe number of competitors is officially guaranteed. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Try to disprove the working assumption before funding it. For Competition and self-cannibalization, hold provider count, overlapping SKUs, rival prices, combined sales, and demand change steady while testing count all providers. If the predicted signal does not move, return to map overlapping SKUs and record the contradiction instead of adding another purchase to save the theory.
Before signing near an owned store, compare overlapping SKUs rather than business names alone. A differently named shop can cannibalize the same demand, while similar formats in separate neighborhoods may avoid direct competition.
Action checklist
- Count all providers.
- Map overlapping SKUs.
- Capture pre-entry sales.
- Monitor combined results.
- Differentiate when needed.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| count all providers | provider count, overlapping SKUs, rival prices, combined sales, and demand change supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | map overlapping SKUs |
| capture pre-entry sales | market state before lease, opening date, rival actions, and performance of every affected owned store is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | monitor combined results |
| differentiate when needed | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in competition and self-cannibalization. |
Neighborhood class and pricing potential
Acceptable prices are district-sensitive, but location prestige does not automatically produce higher profit. The next decision should therefore be tied to price, units, contribution per unit, pricing satisfaction, hourly customers, and rent, not to visual activity.
A developer reply confirms district-specific sweet spots and skill effects; actual volume still depends on demand, competition, and customer behavior.
Procedure: record local market references; start with conservative prices; hold operations constant; raise one SKU gradually; compare contribution and satisfaction
Example: A premium neighborhood accepts a larger unit margin but produces fewer transactions or higher rent. A working-class site may win through volume. Only a complete contribution comparison settles it.
If customers complain despite being cheaper than a rival, recognize that the acceptable local range can still be exceeded. Inspect price, units, contribution per unit, pricing satisfaction, hourly customers, and rent before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record matched price tests for the same SKU and equivalent hours in each candidate neighborhood in BizMan. Use price, units, contribution per unit, pricing satisfaction, hourly customers, and rent only when its controls remain comparable.
Old district price tables are unsafe for Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Build a two-column ledger. Put price, units, contribution per unit, pricing satisfaction, hourly customers, and rent under results and matched price tests for the same SKU and equivalent hours in each candidate neighborhood under controls. Credit record local references only when the controls describe the same operating conditions; otherwise a delivery, staffing change, or unusually busy day can receive credit for an effect it did not cause.
Test district pricing with identical products and comparable employee skill. Record accepted price, units, and contribution after rent; a richer neighborhood helps only when extra unit contribution exceeds higher occupancy cost or weaker completed volume.
Action checklist
- Record local references.
- Run conservative tests.
- Change one SKU.
- Compare total contribution.
- Ignore prestige narratives.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| record local references | price, units, contribution per unit, pricing satisfaction, hourly customers, and rent supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | run conservative tests |
| change one SKU | matched price tests for the same SKU and equivalent hours in each candidate neighborhood is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | compare total contribution |
| ignore prestige narratives | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in neighborhood class and pricing potential. |
Hours implied by the site
Location value depends on whether customer demand occurs during hours the player can staff economically. Treat the live requirement as the gate for hours implied by the site.
The developer directs players to the Yesterday hourly graph, and version-labelled 1.0 testing reports meaningful business-type and weekday patterns.
Procedure: open a test schedule; capture hourly customers; calculate hourly contribution; repeat across weekdays; remove persistently negative edge hours
Example: A location appears weak under an eight-to-four schedule but its business type peaks later. Extending into the peak changes the conclusion without changing the lease.
Before abandoning a site for low daily customers, verify that the schedule covers its high-potential periods. Inspect hourly customers, hourly sales, scheduled wage, stock availability, and day type before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record a seven-by-twenty-four matrix where possible, marking contaminated hours and staffing levels in BizMan. Use hourly customers, hourly sales, scheduled wage, stock availability, and day type only when its controls remain comparable.
The community heatmap is a useful prior, not a substitute for the store's own BizMan history. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Set a stopping rule before the experiment. Redesign the plan when hourly customers, hourly sales, scheduled wage, stock availability, and day type remains unfavorable after test representative hours and capture Yesterday data both pass.
Use the Yesterday chart to determine whether the address was judged under the correct schedule. A site tested only from eight to four may look poor for an evening-weighted format, while late-night hours can burden a daytime service.
Action checklist
- Test representative hours.
- Capture Yesterday data.
- Calculate contribution.
- Compare weekdays.
- Trim negative edges.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| test representative hours | hourly customers, hourly sales, scheduled wage, stock availability, and day type supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | capture Yesterday data |
| calculate contribution | a seven-by-twenty-four matrix where possible, marking contaminated hours and staffing levels is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | compare weekdays |
| trim negative edges | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in hours implied by the site. |
Candidate scoring model
A transparent score makes tradeoffs visible but must not pretend to be the game's hidden customer formula. This turns candidate scoring model into a measurable commitment rather than a guess.
No official source supplies one universal property score, so a player model should rank feasibility and risk rather than predict exact sales.
Procedure: set decision weights; normalize candidate observations; score demand and feasibility; subtract cost and risk; stress-test the ranking
Example: Site A wins on traffic, Site B on cap and rent, and Site C on supplier access. Changing the weight on logistics reveals whether the preferred choice depends on an unrealistic assumption.
If a tiny change in one weight reverses the winner, treat the sites as close and prefer the more reversible lease. Inspect weighted demand, competition, capacity headroom, cost, logistics, and layout risk before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record raw data, normalization method, weights, score, and sensitivity case in BizMan. Use weighted demand, competition, capacity headroom, cost, logistics, and layout risk only when its controls remain comparable.
The percentages are planning weights, not verified game coefficients; adjust them to the intended format and cash position. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Cross-check the management screens. BizMan should explain weighted demand, competition, capacity headroom, cost, logistics, and layout risk, while Market Insider or EconoView supplies the market or cost context contained in raw data, normalization method, weights, score, and sensitivity case.
A scoring sheet may weight demand fit, competition, usable capacity, logistics, layout, and cost, but display every weight. Rerun the ranking after worsening the leader's demand and wages; a robust winner survives reasonable downside assumptions.
Action checklist
- Define weights openly.
- Score raw observations.
- Apply cost penalties.
- Run sensitivity cases.
- Prefer robust winners.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| define weights openly | weighted demand, competition, capacity headroom, cost, logistics, and layout risk supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | score raw observations |
| apply cost penalties | raw data, normalization method, weights, score, and sensitivity case is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | run sensitivity cases |
| prefer robust winners | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in candidate scoring model. |
Pre-lease diagnostic walk
A final inspection can catch mismatches between spreadsheet attractiveness and the actual operational site. The dated observation becomes the baseline for verified physical constraints and refreshed market observations.
The game models physical movement, storage, furniture placement, parking, and travel, so address-level friction matters.
Procedure: visit at likely opening time; inspect entrance and interior; trace supplier approach; confirm vacancy data; refresh Market Insider
Example: The leading candidate has excellent metrics but awkward parking and a floor plan that cannot fit the required station count. The second-ranked site becomes superior after physical verification.
If the plan requires speculative furniture placement, test it through available blueprint or design tools before committing. Inspect verified physical constraints and refreshed market observations before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record visit time, route, entrance, parking, fixed rooms, measured fit, and any discrepancy from the candidate table in BizMan. Use verified physical constraints and refreshed market observations only when its controls remain comparable.
Traffic index is an abstract game value; counting visible pedestrians is not a substitute for the displayed metric. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Ask a counterfactual question: if visit the property were not the constraint, what different result should appear in verified physical constraints and refreshed market observations? A useful intervention produces distinguishable success and failure signals.
Visit the leading property while carrying the largest object or stock load required. Confirm entrance, parking, delivery spot, and usable interior before treating the map listing as a complete description of operational access.
Action checklist
- Visit the property.
- Trace both flows.
- Verify fixture fit.
- Refresh market data.
- Document discrepancies.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| visit the property | verified physical constraints and refreshed market observations supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | trace both flows |
| verify fixture fit | visit time, route, entrance, parking, fixed rooms, measured fit, and any discrepancy from the candidate table is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | refresh market data |
| document discrepancies | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in pre-lease diagnostic walk. |
Post-opening location test
A lease choice remains a hypothesis until a functioning store produces clean hourly and financial evidence.
Realized customers depend on multiple market and execution factors, so a poor opening cannot be assigned to location without controlling setup.
Procedure: clear all blocking warnings; hold price and marketing steady; run comparable days; capture hourly and SKU data; classify the first binding constraint
Example: The site serves exactly ten customers per hour because one display category supports only ten. Calling the address bad would be incorrect until that bottleneck is removed.
If results disappoint, test structure, staffing, stock, price, hours, demand, promotion, and only then inherent location quality. Inspect peak customers versus effective capacity, demand changes, conversion, and contribution after occupancy cost before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record baseline days, every controlled intervention, and the resulting metric changes in BizMan. Use peak customers versus effective capacity, demand changes, conversion, and contribution after occupancy cost only when its controls remain comparable.
A rival event or shortage can contaminate the test; annotate it rather than averaging it away. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Price the opportunity cost. Cash or time committed to establish clean operation cannot also fund test one remedy.
After opening, isolate location from setup: clear warnings, maintain stock, hold prices and campaigns steady, and compare peak customers with effective capacity. Only a clean store can reveal whether weak traffic or local demand limits the address.
Action checklist
- Establish clean operation.
- Run a stable baseline.
- Identify the binding constraint.
- Test one remedy.
- Decide with contribution.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| establish clean operation | peak customers versus effective capacity, demand changes, conversion, and contribution after occupancy cost supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | run a stable baseline |
| identify the binding constraint | baseline days, every controlled intervention, and the resulting metric changes is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | test one remedy |
| decide with contribution | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in post-opening location test. |
Final location audit
A defensible first-store address is affordable, operationally complete, sourceable, and supported by current market evidence.
This audit integrates official mechanics without elevating any community threshold into a rule.
Procedure: verify district; verify basket; verify capacity and layout; verify logistics; verify runway and exit plan
Example: The winning site may not lead every column. It wins because the player can open it completely, reach customers during staffable hours, replenish it, and survive uncertainty.
A blank field in sourcing, fit, schedule, or cash is an unresolved risk rather than permission to assume the best. Inspect complete evidence coverage and robustness under a conservative case before choosing the more expensive branch.
Record the signed-off candidate sheet, runner-up, assumptions, sensitivity case, and first post-opening review date in BizMan. Use complete evidence coverage and robustness under a conservative case only when its controls remain comparable.
Re-run the audit after any patch that changes demand, property, equipment capacity, sourcing, or rival behavior. Confirm the current F1 requirement again after a relevant patch.
Follow the cheap branch first: establish complete every field, read complete evidence coverage and robustness under a conservative case, and commit to retain an exit criterion only when both support the same explanation.
Sign the candidate record with the chosen address, rejected runner-up, conservative runway, expected bottleneck, and relocation trigger. This preserves the reasoning when sunk fit-out costs later make an objectively weak site feel too expensive to leave.
Action checklist
- Complete every field.
- Stress-test weak demand.
- Reserve operating cash.
- Schedule the review.
- Retain an exit criterion.
| Checkpoint | Evidence of a pass | Response to failure |
|---|---|---|
| complete every field | complete evidence coverage and robustness under a conservative case supports the intended condition under the recorded controls. | stress-test weak demand |
| reserve operating cash | the signed-off candidate sheet, runner-up, assumptions, sensitivity case, and first post-opening review date is complete and the comparison has no unexplained outage. | schedule the review |
| retain an exit criterion | The downside is affordable and a review trigger is recorded. | Pause and repeat the smallest disputed test in final location audit. |
Research ledger
These links establish mechanics or provide a reproducible lead. Any balance-sensitive number still has to be checked in the current save.
Questions answered
Is traffic index or customer capacity more important?
They answer different questions. Traffic contributes to potential flow; building capacity is the hard hourly ceiling. The better first-store lease is the one whose demand, traffic, usable capacity, rent, layout, staffing, and supply costs produce the stronger feasible operation.
Is traffic 40 a verified minimum?
No. It is a historical community heuristic. Developer explanations do not define a universal threshold, and the result also depends on business type, demand, competition, satisfaction, promotion, and capacity.
Should I always rent a thirty-customer building instead of a fifteen-customer one?
No. The larger ceiling is useful only if demand exists and the player can afford the fixtures, staff, stock, and rent needed to use it. A complete small shop can outperform an underfunded large one.
How do I compare neighborhoods with different customer classes?
Run controlled price and volume observations and compare total contribution after rent and wages. District-specific price tolerance is real, but higher accepted prices do not automatically offset lower volume or higher occupancy cost.
When should I move a weak first store?
Only after removing setup, staffing, stock, hours, price, and capacity failures. If a clean test still shows insufficient contribution and relocation costs less than repairing the address, moving becomes defensible.