Stress-test a shrink spike review by proving that each finding window and hold rule can place loss signals inside the planned lane, survive override pressure, and avoid trapping loss prevention inside a green shrink slide that hides long-lived gaps.
Shrink spike reviews often list a checklist while leaving restore behavior, override authority, and abort ownership implicit. Those edges decide whether a late shrink ask stops inside the review packet or leaves a broken control live under store load. The exercise should follow actual count timelines, category maps, and escalation paths rather than a clean loss deck.
Map the finding path
List every category class with its finding window, waive rule, override behavior, owners, and notification channels. Mark paths that cannot reverse without a manual amendment. Attach the last three shrink spike incidents with raw timelines and any waivers. Include the source of truth for open variance counts during the observation window.
Define the phases for detect, hold, investigate, abort, and restore. Each phase needs an owner and an exit condition. Write the point after which a stuck variance would require a different procedure, then review whether that action is still permitted. Capture maximum acceptable loss friction in measurable units, including which stores are excluded from the review and why.
Include the calendar of known events for the next two quarters: promotions, inventory freezes, and staffing cuts that shrink the usable finding window. A review budget that ignores those dates will look calm until the week they land.
Break drills
- A minority high-shrink store keeps a side-channel while the aggregate loss dashboard stays green.
- A restore has already left a floor surface without a trusted count state.
- The primary shrink dashboard lags beyond the planned observation window.
- An operator skips a hold gate because a promo deadline is near.
- Automated and human findings collide under the new review rule.
- Abort authority is unclear at week end and the update lands on the wrong amendment.
For each drill, identify detection time, loss impact, containment, and the authority to force a review rollback. Require commands and dashboard links in the runbook. A claim that monitoring will catch it does not establish which alert fires or who receives it.
Show timing and ownership
Run the package in Pingpong with store, loss prevention, inventory, and finance seats. Ask store which availability decision becomes unsafe first if findings still stick after the claimed window. Ask loss prevention whether count macros can absorb a forced override. Ask owners to show the exact variance version or export used as the exit condition.
Related reviews include the store ops lead seat, a planogram freeze, a safety stock rule, and the inventory ops lead seat. Browse the war-game decisions hub for adjacent controls.
Authorize the published shrink spike review only after a timed drill restores usable loss hygiene inside the documented budget without an undocumented manual step.