Security for premium retail

Security scope and current baseline

Security in Big Ambitions 1.0/build 3674 is a loss-control system. Its purpose is to reduce theft while a store trades, not to create customer demand.

Official EA 0.3 notes introduced the theft system and security requirements based on store type and size, including detector panels, cameras, dome cameras, security guards, and guard support. High-value categories were singled out for stronger protection.

Official build 2048 notes soon afterward reduced the maximum guard coverage needed for jewelry from three fully trained guards to two, secured closed stores, displayed existing camera coverage during placement, and reduced theft. These are historical design changes, so current F1 and the live security panel decide exact requirements.

Developer guidance says security affects theft, while customer flow is governed by other systems. Do not buy cameras as marketing or blame low traffic on a guard score without separate evidence.

A current May 2026 developer reply confirms the practical high-value setup still expects two simultaneous fully skilled guards in the discussed case and documents a camera-recognition problem after interior installation. This is close to 1.0 and reproducible, but the current store’s live requirement still wins.

Build 3674 fixes employee-quit states that could interrupt scheduled systems. A guard who disappeared or a management process that failed on a pre-hotfix day can corrupt theft comparisons. Update, advance to a clean day, and verify the roster.

Security advice must be business-specific. Thefts, guard wages, hours, layout, product value, skill, and current requirements differ; no universal equipment package or payback threshold is supported.

Classify the store’s exposure

Start with the exact store, products, capacity, hours, and live requirement rather than a district stereotype.

Record business type, neighborhood, premises size and capacity, product categories, landed cost, selling price, average stock, opening hours, traffic, and current security requirement. Valuable inventory and long hours generally create more potential loss exposure.

Identify whether F1 or the business status requires detector panels, cameras, dome cameras, a guard locker or station, and simultaneous guards. Separate mandatory components from optional extra coverage.

Map product value concentration. A small zone holding most landed inventory deserves priority in camera planning. Use landed cost and stock units, not retail price alone, when estimating direct inventory loss.

Record access points, entrances, delivery doors, blind corners, fixture height, and customer paths. Security geometry belongs in the layout survey before decoration or dense shelving.

Classify exposure as low, medium, or high using explicit local criteria: observed theft, inventory value at risk, requirement strength, recovery lead time, and cost of a stockout. The labels organize work; they are not game-defined tiers.

Review classification after assortment, price, hours, layout, or store-size changes. Adding jewelry to a mixed shop or extending overnight can change the protection economics.

Build the security requirement checklist

Translate F1 and the business status screen into a component-by-component acceptance test.

For each detector or entrance panel, record count, intended doorway, orientation, and whether the live status recognizes it. A device placed near an entrance is not necessarily installed correctly.

For each camera, record type, mounting position, coverage zone, and recognition state. Use the coverage overlay now shown during placement. Recheck after walls, tall fixtures, or decorations move.

For guards, record required simultaneous count, employee skill, assigned business, valid workstation or locker, schedule, satisfaction, wage, and coverage of every open minute. Headcount is not simultaneous coverage.

Record the store’s security percentage or status at opening, peak, closing, and while closed. Official historical notes say closed stores are secured, while developer guidance emphasizes guards during open hours.

Keep one row per requirement and one evidence screenshot after the final layout. If the score changes unexpectedly, compare the last known map rather than buying random extra equipment.

Do not treat 99 or 100 as an isolated target without checking the underlying recognized components and schedules. Small rounding or UI behavior can exist; theft evidence and live warnings complete the diagnosis.

Plan camera coverage from the floor plan

Cameras protect zones, so begin with geometry and the coverage overlay rather than buying a fixed number.

Mark entrances, checkout, high-value displays, blind corners, and customer circulation. Prioritize required zones shown by current F1 and the live overlay. Do not assume one centered camera sees through every fixture.

Place cameras only after structural fixtures are stable but before decoration fills walls. Rotate each device while observing its coverage visualization. Record uncovered high-value areas and whether another camera or fixture move is cheaper.

Check tall shelving, partitions, and unusual shell geometry. Even when the simulation uses a coverage score rather than literal vision, the placement interface is the intended source of truth.

Walk the store in player-present mode and verify cameras remain recognized after reloading. Compare the business security status with the saved layout map.

Current developer troubleshooting says cameras placed through an interior installation firm may fail to register in some cases; removing and placing them again can refresh recognition. Treat this as a diagnostic step, not a routine redesign.

If re-placement does not fix a reproducible build-3674 mismatch, capture before and after scores, device locations, blueprint source and version, and submit an F2 report.

Staff guard coverage, not guard headcount

Security requires the correct number of eligible guards at the same time throughout every open period.

Read the current simultaneous-guard requirement and skill effect in F1. Older official notes and developer examples support two fully trained guards for high-value cases, but another store may differ.

Build a coverage grid with weekday and hour rows. Enter each guard’s exact shift and sum eligible guards for every open interval. A morning pair and evening pair are four employees but only two simultaneous guards.

Account for shift handoffs and midnight crossings. One-minute gaps can exist between blocks that look adjacent in an hourly summary. Select each weekday and verify both sides of midnight.

Skill matters. If lower-skill guards require more people under the current UI, compare training cost and temporary coverage with the permanent wage cost of an extra guard. Record the live relationship rather than copying an old percentage table.

Reconcile full-time or part-time wishes, requested hours, insurance, demands, and satisfaction. A theoretically complete schedule that causes churn or absence is not reliable protection.

Keep a spare or cross-trained contingency where the expected theft or closure risk justifies it. Price the standby arrangement against observed loss, not fear.

Align protection with opening hours

Every additional trading hour can add a full security labor block, so opening-hours optimization and loss prevention must be solved together.

Developer guidance says guards are needed during open hours, and official notes secure the store while closed. Cost guards only where the store trades, but verify the live status at boundaries.

For each candidate extension, calculate hourly store contribution before security and subtract all guards required for that hour plus incremental cleaning. If the protected result is negative, close earlier or redesign the business; do not operate deliberately under-protected.

Night and weekend periods may require separate employee groups to satisfy availability. The first added hour can force a whole new shift, making its true marginal cost much larger than one average hourly wage.

Use BizMan Insights’ Yesterday customer graph and the store’s EconoView theft over matched periods. A low-customer late hour can be unprofitable even if no theft occurs because guard wages remain.

Test one boundary at a time with complete protection. Comparing a protected baseline to an unprotected extension confounds customer contribution with loss.

After changing hours, update the security coverage grid immediately. A store schedule can change faster than the guard plan and silently create exposed intervals.

Measure theft in EconoView

Store-specific EconoView is the authoritative operational record for observed theft expense in the save.

Developer support directs players to the individual business EconoView budget for theft. Record the exact store, date range, opening hours, revenue, COGS, theft line, guard wages, and security configuration.

Use comparable periods: the same weekdays, stable price, promotion, product mix, stock, staffing, and hours. A festival-like demand surge or stockout changes both exposure and sales.

Do not use missing retail revenue as the theft value. The financial screen reports its own loss accounting. Separately estimate opportunity contribution only when stolen stock caused a verified stockout.

Normalize for exposure where useful: theft per open hour, theft per customer, theft per thousand dollars of landed inventory, and theft as a share of gross contribution. None is a universal target; trends within the same store are informative.

Keep raw totals beside ratios. A tiny denominator can make a percentage dramatic, while a large high-volume store can have a small rate but material dollars.

Review weekly and after every security, layout, hours, or assortment change. Daily theft can be noisy; retain the exact period rather than quoting one memorable event.

Security return-on-investment formula

Security is justified by avoided loss and operational resilience relative to its complete incremental cost.

Baseline theft B is observed theft under the prior valid setup. Secured theft S is observed theft under the new setup. Avoided direct loss A = B minus S over matched periods.

Incremental security cost K = added guard wages plus insurance and training allocation plus equipment amortization plus any layout or installation cost. Net direct security benefit = A minus K.

Add avoided stockout contribution separately when evidence supports it: verified missed units times unit contribution. Do not count full retail value and EconoView theft together, which would double-count.

For required security, compliance may be necessary even when the measured short sample does not repay. The economic decision can shift to business type, store size, assortment, and hours rather than deleting mandatory protection.

Use a conservative range because baseline theft is variable. Calculate low, base, and high avoided loss from multiple matched weeks. Require a margin before adding optional guards.

Payback weeks = one-time equipment and installation cost divided by weekly avoided loss after recurring guard cost, only when the denominator is positive. If negative, there is no payback under measured conditions.

Inventory and security coordination

Loss prevention and replenishment share the same evidence: stock, sales, transfers, and closing balance.

Reconcile expected closing units = opening units plus receipts and inbound transfers minus sales and outbound transfers. Positive expected-minus-observed variance is shrink to investigate.

Compare the variance with EconoView theft for the same store and period. Check manual vehicle loads, emergency purchases, fixture stock, warehouse transfers, and timing before concluding the entire difference is theft.

High safety stock increases inventory value at risk. Balance service protection with security and cash. A long import lead may justify more stock, while a bulky low-margin local item may not.

Stolen stock can create a required-category shortage and reduce customer capacity. Track stockout hours after loss. The direct EconoView expense and missed contribution are distinct.

Security changes can alter the inventory target decision. If protection sharply reduces shrink, the purchasing plan should stop replacing the old loss rate after several valid cycles.

Keep guard and logistics event times in the same timeline. A store that appears short before a delivery may not be suffering theft at all.

Layout, customer flow, and guard access

Security equipment must coexist with sales capacity, queues, deliveries, and cleaning without creating new operational failures.

Place detector panels at valid entrances while preserving a clear arrival and exit path. Keep camera interaction and guard support away from checkout queues and delivery lanes.

Reserve camera wall positions before tall fixtures and decoration. Use the coverage overlay, then test player-present customer flow during a peak. A security-perfect maze can reduce sales.

Give guards valid access to their workstation or locker and preserve employee paths. Verify objects remain assignable after a blueprint installation or furniture move.

Keep delivery-to-storage movement separate from customer queues. Security devices should not block hand trucks or force stock through a narrow protected entrance.

After any layout change, rerun two audits: business capacity/requirements and security recognition. A moved display can change both customer flow and value concentration.

Save a versioned blueprint only after player-present and simulated operation pass. Label its security assumptions, guard skill, opening hours, business type, shell, and build.

Skill, training, and labor economics

Guard skill can change required simultaneous staffing, so training is a capital decision with an operational transition.

Read the current F1 relationship between guard skill and store requirement. Historical official notes use fully trained guards in the two-guard jewelry cap; do not assume an exact linear formula.

Calculate weekly cost at current skill: sum guard wages times hours plus insurance and support. Calculate trained-state cost and one-time training cost. Compare the change in required headcount and coverage reliability.

Training can temporarily remove a guard from the schedule. Provide replacement coverage or train during a closure. A training week with an exposed store is not a valid before/after theft test.

High skill may be valuable even when headcount does not fall, but that benefit must appear in live requirement, theft, or continuity evidence. Avoid attributing every random theft change to skill.

Include employee satisfaction, requested hours, days, and demands. Churn in a two-person simultaneous requirement can be more expensive than a slightly higher stable wage.

After training, reassign the guard to the store and schedule if necessary, then verify the security status at every opening boundary.

Common mistakes and false conclusions

Security errors often arise from confusing a displayed percentage, a headcount, or a single theft day with a complete protected system.

Buying a fixed camera pack from an old guide ignores current F1, shell geometry, coverage overlays, and patch changes. Design from the live store requirement.

Scheduling two guards sometime during the day is not the same as two simultaneous guards for every open minute. Use a coverage grid with exact handoffs.

Calling security unprofitable from one quiet week ignores theft variability; calling it profitable from one large event overfits the opposite direction. Compare several matched periods and use ranges.

Valuing theft at retail price while also using EconoView loss can double-count. Use the game’s direct theft line and add only separately evidenced missed contribution.

Removing guards from weak late hours while leaving the store open creates an invalid economic test and may violate requirements. Close the store or keep full protection.

Assuming 100 percent means impossible theft can be too absolute. Developer guidance suggests full security should prevent theft aside from small rounding or edge behavior, so reproduce any residual loss and keep exact evidence.

Troubleshooting decision tree

When security remains low or theft persists, test recognition, staffing, timing, inventory accounting, and economics in order.

First read the live missing requirement. If a panel, camera, locker, or guard is absent, repair that exact component. Do not add unrelated devices.

Second check recognition and geometry. Use camera overlay, reload, compare the security score, and remove/re-place installer cameras if the current issue matches the developer report.

Third check guards: exact business assignment, skill, valid support object, schedule, simultaneous count, opening boundaries, absence, training, and satisfaction. Repair gaps and discard exposed days.

Fourth reconcile inventory and EconoView over the same period. Confirm the apparent loss is not a transfer, delivery timing issue, fixture distribution, or manual vehicle load.

Fifth calculate matched-period net benefit. If optional security costs more than avoided loss, remove only the optional layer after preserving mandatory requirements, or redesign hours and assortment.

If full recognized security still produces reproducible unexplained theft on build 3674, capture the save, store, products, score, schedules, devices, period, and EconoView and submit F2.

Security management record

A complete record connects floor coverage, employee schedules, theft, inventory, and finance at one store and period.

Identity fields: build, date range, business, neighborhood, address, shell, product categories, premises capacity, opening hours, and test ID.

Configuration fields: live security requirement, percentage or status, panels, camera types and positions, coverage map version, guard support object, and blueprint/install source.

Guard fields: name, skill, wage, insurance, requested hours, exact schedule, business assignment, absence, training, and minimum simultaneous count by interval.

Exposure fields: average landed inventory value, units by high-value SKU, customers, sales, deliveries, stockout hours, and changes to assortment, layout, price, promotion, or opening.

Outcome fields: EconoView theft, theft per open hour, direct guard cost, equipment amortization, avoided loss range, net benefit, and separately supported missed contribution.

Governance fields: pass/fail reason, corrective action, effective time, rollback map, next review date, and triggers such as patch, expansion, new product, hours change, or repeated loss.

Scenario: high-value store expansion

A controlled expansion example shows why security, hours, inventory, and capacity must be priced as one package.

A jewelry store expands from target capacity twenty to forty and adds displays. Before expansion, record average landed inventory, open hours, two-guard schedule, camera map, weekly theft, customers, contribution, and stockouts.

Model incremental exposure: added inventory units times landed cost, additional camera zones, longer restocking path, and any new opening hours. Verify the premises security requirement after fixtures are installed.

If customer demand justifies longer hours, cost both guards across the extension. If a whole evening shift is required, include the full block. Do not fund it from optimistic retail revenue.

Run one valid baseline week after layout stabilization, then the changed week with the same price and promotion. Record EconoView theft and contribution, and check player-present paths.

Net expansion value = added gross contribution minus added sales labor, guard cost, equipment amortization, logistics, rent delta, and added theft. Use several weeks if theft is volatile.

If the new capacity remains unused or protected contribution is negative, revert the hour or fixture stage. Keep the security map that corresponds to each blueprint version.

Final loss-prevention audit

The final audit verifies live requirements, physical recognition, continuous staffing, measured economics, and reproducibility.

Confirm build 3674, current F1 security requirements, business type, size, products, opening hours, and every mandatory panel, camera, support object, and guard condition.

Confirm the coverage overlay protects intended zones, all devices are recognized after reload, entrances and delivery routes remain clear, and the saved map matches the current layout.

Confirm guard skill and simultaneous count meet the live rule for every open minute, including handoffs and midnight. Employee demands, insurance, satisfaction, training, and absence cover are resolved.

Confirm EconoView theft and inventory reconciliation use the same stores and periods. Direct loss, missed contribution, guard wages, and equipment costs are not double-counted.

Confirm optional security passes a matched-period avoided-loss and net-benefit test with uncertainty. Mandatory protection remains even when a short sample shows no payback; redesign the business if its required cost is untenable.

Archive build, requirement screen, map, roster grid, raw theft periods, formulas, decision, rollback, and review triggers. Reaudit after any patch, blueprint installation, camera move, hours change, new product, store expansion, guard training, or unexplained shrink.

Run a boundary-minute audit rather than checking only hourly summaries. Inspect opening, every guard handoff, midnight, and closing. Confirm the required simultaneous count, skill, business assignment, and valid support object before and after each boundary. Write any uncovered minutes explicitly and repair them before using that day in a theft comparison.

Run a matched exposure audit. Select baseline and protected periods with the same weekdays, opening hours, price regime, promotion, product mix, and approximately comparable landed inventory. Record customers and deliveries as exposure notes. If one period held twice the valuable stock, a raw theft comparison alone is weak; retain totals and normalized measures.

Run an accounting consistency audit. For selected high-value SKUs, reconcile opening units, supplier receipts, inbound logistics, manual transfers, sales, outbound transfers, and closing units. Compare unexplained positive shrink with EconoView’s theft line for exactly the same store and timestamps. Investigate timing or destination errors before assigning every discrepancy to shoplifting.

Run a physical rollback audit after any blueprint or installer job. Save the prior camera map and status, install the change, reload, and verify recognition. If coverage falls, remove and replace only affected cameras, retest paths, and preserve both map versions. This is safer than adding devices until the percentage changes.

Run an optional-security sensitivity case. Evaluate low, base, and high baseline theft while keeping guard wages and equipment cost fixed. If the net benefit changes sign across plausible cases, classify the optional layer as uncertain and collect more matched weeks. Do not remove a live mandatory requirement because an uncertain financial estimate is negative.

Finally connect the review to operations. If protected late hours remain unprofitable, shorten the store schedule. If high safety stock drives exposure, improve delivery cadence where feasible. If one category creates most shrink and little contribution, reconsider assortment. Security is successful when it supports a viable operating design, not when it maximizes a percentage in isolation.

Add a guard-continuity drill. Remove one scheduled guard from a future test copy of the roster without advancing the live comparison period, identify every uncovered interval, and determine which trained employee or shift change would restore the simultaneous requirement. Then restore the original schedule. The purpose is planning, not deliberate exposure. Record the replacement wage, availability, insurance, and employee-demand implications so an actual resignation does not force an uncosted choice.

Add an evidence-retention rule. Keep at least one last-known-good screenshot of the security status, one coverage-map image, the exact guard grid, the relevant EconoView period, and the matching inventory reconciliation. Label all five with build, store, and time. If a patch or blueprint changes recognition, these artifacts show whether the failure is mechanical, scheduling, accounting, or simply a different exposure period. Retain the prior accepted configuration until the replacement passes a complete matched opening cycle. Note every manual stock movement during that cycle so an emergency transfer cannot be misclassified as prevented or residual theft.