garcon-drinks Orange liqueur selection
Build a coverage matrix from the user's target recipes and current candidate facts. Return a reviewed bottle decision with unresolved tradeoffs exposed.
Gate the request
Confirm that the job compares identified commercial orange liqueurs for a user-supplied set of target recipes. Record the exact recipe names, sources, and orange-liqueur requirements.
Stop as out of scope when the user wants a generic ingredient substitution, a
recipe rewrite, another bottle category, a purchase, or a universal "best"
orange liqueur. A target list such as Margaritas and other drinks is not
specific enough to evaluate coverage.
The gate passes when at least one target recipe has an exact orange-liqueur requirement and every candidate has a brand plus product name.
Build the decision record
Record every field before comparing candidates.
| Field | Required record |
|---|---|
| Target recipes | Name, source, exact orange-liqueur wording, amount, and whether the wording is locked |
| Candidates | Brand, exact product, market label, bottle size, and user-supplied source |
| Orange role | Named product, named category, or a user-defined functional role |
| Sweetness tolerance | Hard ceiling, ranked preference, no constraint, or unknown |
| Base preference | Neutral alcohol, cognac or brandy, no preference, or unknown |
| Proof | Required ABV or proof, accepted range, no constraint, or unknown |
| Budget | Currency, total cap, tax treatment, or no constraint |
| Availability | Store or market, stock observation, and observation date |
| Price | Bottle price, size, currency, tax treatment, source, and observation date |
| Shelf space | Maximum bottle count and any size restriction |
| Priority order | User's order for coverage, role, sweetness, base, proof, price, and space |
| Review date | Date applied to product, price, and availability evidence |
Ask whether each missing preference is a hard constraint or an accepted unknown. Never fill an evidence gap with a category stereotype.
This step is complete when each field contains supplied evidence, unknown, or
an explicit statement that it is unconstrained.
Classify recipe requirements
Preserve the source wording for every recipe.
| Requirement type | Treatment |
|---|---|
| Exact product | Only that product receives confirmed exact coverage |
| Named brand without expression | A product from that brand needs current evidence connecting the expression to the recipe |
| Named category | A candidate needs current label or first-party evidence for that category |
| User-defined role | Apply only the user's stated acceptance rule |
| Ambiguous wording | Mark the recipe unresolved |
A named-product requirement stays locked unless the user explicitly moves it
to a separate test branch. That branch receives reviewed trial needed, never
confirmed coverage. Do not prescribe a replacement volume or modify the recipe.
Classification passes when another reader can trace every requirement to its source and see which wording remains locked.
Load applicable evidence
Read only the references that match the candidates or recipes in the decision record.
- For Cointreau L'Unique, read the Cointreau reference.
- When Grand Marnier Cordon Rouge is a candidate, read the Grand Marnier reference.
- For Ferrand Dry Curaçao, read the Ferrand reference.
- When an IBA Margarita or IBA Grand Margarita is a target, read the IBA recipe reference.
The exact bottle label takes precedence over a packaged reference. Use a current producer page for the same product and market next. Record all other product facts as unresolved.
Producer tasting prose cannot establish the user's preference, a sweetness rank, recipe equivalence, or universal versatility. Current local price and availability must come from dated user evidence.
Preserve composition facts as composition facts. Do not restate an ingredient, base spirit, or production detail as flavor, character, richness, dryness, or sensory effect.
This step passes when every product claim has a current label, first-party
source, or explicit unresolved status.
Build the coverage matrix
Create one row for each target recipe and one column for each candidate. Assign one status to every cell.
| Status | Test |
|---|---|
confirmed exact |
Candidate and locked product requirement match exactly |
confirmed category |
Current evidence matches the recipe's named category |
reviewed trial needed |
The user authorized a separate test for a nonmatching product or role |
unsupported |
Evidence conflicts with the requirement or the user rejected the candidate |
unresolved |
Identity, category, proof, or acceptance evidence is missing |
Add the source beside each confirmed status. Keep recipe coverage separate from base-spirit composition and user taste preference.
A product's 40% ABV does not prove that it matches a 40% recipe requirement when the required product, category, or role differs. A marketing serving suggestion does not convert a trial into confirmed coverage.
The matrix is complete when every cell has one status, one reason, and a traceable source or blocking unknown.
Apply constraints and rank
Disqualify a candidate or lineup that exceeds the budget or shelf count, fails a hard proof requirement, lacks required availability evidence, or conflicts with a locked product requirement. An unresolved hard constraint blocks a winner.
Rank the remaining lineups in this order unless the user supplied another priority order.
- Preserve all locked recipe requirements.
- Maximize
confirmed exactcoverage. - Maximize
confirmed categorycoverage. - Minimize
reviewed trial neededand unresolved cells. - Apply the user's remaining role, base, price, and shelf priorities.
A quantitative sugar ceiling or lower-sugar requirement needs comparable current analytical facts in matching units for every affected candidate. A user's controlled tasting can rank perceived sweetness only when perceived sweetness is the stated criterion. Sensory evidence cannot measure sugar or resolve an analytical requirement.
One product's sugar or carbohydrate figure cannot rank the full set. Product names, ingredients, base spirits, price, and producer tasting language provide no replacement for the missing analytical facts.
If two lineups remain equal, return tie and identify the fact or preference
that would resolve it. When the constraints conflict, return no qualifying lineup with the smallest changes that create feasible branches. Do not lower a
hard limit or invent a winner.
This step passes when the result can be reproduced from the matrix, constraint checks, and displayed priority order.
Return the review package
Use this structure.
Decision scope:
Review date:
Inputs and hard constraints:
Recipe requirement table:
Candidate evidence:
Coverage matrix:
Constraint checks:
Ranking trace:
Result:
Selected lineup, tie, or no qualifying lineup:
Tradeoffs:
Unsupported recipes:
Reviewed trials needed:
Unresolved facts:
Human review:
The human review line must state that the user decides whether to accept a tradeoff, run a trial, or buy a bottle. Do not open a retailer, place an order, change inventory, or present the result as sensory certainty.
After review, the user can record approved bottles separately in Garçon. Garçon is not required for this procedure.
A resolved package requires exact identities, a complete coverage matrix, traceable product facts, dated market evidence for active market constraints, a reproducible ranking, explicit tradeoffs, and human approval. A stopped package is complete only when it names the blocking evidence and makes no purchase or substitution recommendation.