The word chocolate does not answer both questions
Someone reads “chocolate notes” on a bag and asks whether it contains chocolate. Another person wants to know whether their cup will taste like a cocoa drink. Before drafting a reply, separate composition from sensory description: do not answer both with an automatic yes or no.
This guide proposes trialling a text assistant for a small roastery. You will work with invented records and draft replies explaining what each field says, what is missing and what the responsible person must check. No AI trial has been run: the reference replies are written by hand and demonstrate neither accuracy nor savings.
A note describes the tasting; composition needs its own source
World Coffee Research presents its Sensory Lexicon as a tool for describing and measuring coffee flavours and aromas, with attributes and intensity references. It is sensory vocabulary; do not use it as the ingredient specification for a particular bag.
On pages consulted on 24 October 2026, DOMA explains that its notes reflect what it perceived during cupping and states that it adds no flavours to its coffee. RöstHaus also explains its notes through comparisons with familiar flavours and states that its coffees contain no added flavours. These are statements by those brands: they establish neither your product’s composition nor that of every coffee with similar notes.
The assistant must not taste on your behalf, fill in a commercial specification imaginatively or turn a roaster’s perception into a promise about what every buyer will experience. To answer about a product, first prepare an authorised extract of its current documentation.
- Reference and version: identify the product each document belongs to. Do not mix an old specification, another lot or a similarly named coffee.
- Tasting notes: retain the roaster’s descriptors and their attribution. Do not add “sweet”, “smooth” or an origin absent from the supplied information.
- Composition: copy the relevant field and retain its source. A commercial name or sensory note cannot replace it.
- Enquiry: distinguish “what does this note mean?”, “what does it contain?” and “will I like it?”. If an enquiry raises an allergy or health need, do not draft a suitability guarantee; refer it to the responsible person to verify the relevant information.
Three fictional specifications that require different replies
This entire case is invented: references, documents and enquiries. It represents neither real products, valid labels nor consumption recommendations. F1, authorised specification for PR-11, version 1: “Tasting notes: cocoa and orange. Composition: roasted coffee.” F2, authorised specification for PR-12, version 1: “Composition: roasted coffee and vanilla flavouring. Tasting notes: not supplied.” F3 contains only the commercial name “House Hazelnut”, reference PR-13; there is no composition specification or tasting notes.
C1 asks about PR-11: “Have you added chocolate? Will I taste it just like a cup of hot chocolate?”. C2 asks about PR-12: “Is vanilla a note or something added?”. C3 asks about PR-13: “Does it contain hazelnut or is that a note?”. There are no other documents or enquiries.
| Reference | What the documentation supports | What the draft must not invent |
|---|---|---|
| PR-11 · F1 + C1 | The specification separates cocoa and orange notes from a composition field stating roasted coffee. | Do not promise an experience identical to hot chocolate or extend the composition into a suitability guarantee. |
| PR-12 · F2 + C2 | Vanilla flavouring appears in composition; no tasting notes have been supplied. | Do not reclassify the flavouring as merely a note or invent a vanilla tasting result. |
| PR-13 · F3 + C3 | Only the commercial name is known. The specification is missing for answering about composition and notes. | Do not conclude that it contains hazelnut or is free from it based on the name. |
Write an explanation without offering an imaginary tasting
For C1, a manually written reference would be: “In PR-11’s specification, cocoa and orange appear as tasting notes; the composition field states roasted coffee. Notes describe the sensory profile, not a hot chocolate recipe. We cannot promise that you will perceive it like that drink.” The responsible person must check the specification version against the product before using the text.
For C2: “In F2, vanilla flavouring appears in composition. We have no supplied tasting notes for PR-12.” For C3: “The name House Hazelnut does not let us confirm composition or notes; we need PR-13’s specification.” These are unsent fictional drafts, not replies to real customers.
Keep this boundary: stating what appears in the supplied composition does not establish absence of traces, certifications or suitability for a person. This exercise does not assess food safety or replace checks by the responsible person. Do not turn any row into health advice.
An instruction to try with these records, without connecting the shop
Copy F1, F2, F3 and C1, C2, C3 with this instruction. You do not need buyer information. If you choose Claude, its documentation warns that it can generate incorrect or context-inconsistent content and recommends allowing it to acknowledge uncertainty. That neither validates this exercise nor guarantees its result.
“Use only these fictional documents. For each enquiry, identify the reference and source; separate commercial name, tasting notes and composition. Write a short draft and a list of outstanding information. Do not transfer descriptors into ingredients or ingredients into notes. Do not fill missing fields, promise perceptions or declare suitability, absence of traces or certifications. Do not change records or publish or send replies. If the reference is missing or sources conflict, ask the specific clarification before answering about the product.”
Check every sentence against F1–F3, not just the tone. Reject an output that invents hazelnuts in PR-13, removes F2’s flavouring or adds “allergen-free” to PR-11. Preserve the failed output and record which document or field was confused.
A pilot measuring interpretation errors rather than enthusiasm
Prepare a small set of fictional counter enquiries with an approved manual reply for comparison. Include a complete specification, one without composition and two conflicting documents for the same reference. In the last case, the target is to flag the conflict and ask which version governs, without selecting one because it appears newer if its validity is unconfirmed.
In the case above, remove only F1’s composition: the draft should still explain what a note is but leave what PR-11 contains unresolved. Then return to the original case and change only PR-13’s name to “House Vanilla”: composition is still missing. These changes check whether the reply relies on the correct field; they are not observed results.
- Count unsupported statements, mixed fields, omitted outstanding questions and corrections by the responsible person. Review convincing-looking answers too.
- Compare preparation, reading and correction with replying from a specification and a reusable short explanation. A manual template may suffice for repetitive enquiries.
- Before the pilot, agree which errors prevent use of a draft. If the assistant keeps inventing composition or resolving health questions, retain the manual procedure and reconsider the scope.
When to assess custom development with Adaris
A manual assistant trial means pasting fictional information and reviewing a draft. Connecting automation would require verifying product identifiers, authorised versions, permissions and specification changes. Do not assume compatibility with your shop, email or management software.
One initial scope to assess with Adaris would be an internal enquiry queue linked to authorised specifications, with visible sources and human approval before using each reply. Feasibility, access, export, acceptance criteria and a quote would need agreement. Adaris develops custom software, CRM and AI integrations case by case; this proposal is not an existing roastery tool.
Keep trial data fictional. Before using real enquiries or commercial documents, check permissions and appropriate access, use and retention conditions. You can describe the process without buyer names or private documents. Commercial support is in Spanish.
Related services
Sources
Does every enquiry mean reconstructing the coffee specification?
Describe where you keep product information and who checks replies. We can assess a defined scope; commercial support is in Spanish.