What is conditional visibility?

Conditional visibility is branching logic on audit and checklist questions that shows or hides each question, or group of questions, based on an attribute stored on the location record. It isn't AI guessing what a store needs, and it isn't a general no-code form builder.

It reads one field and renders the matching question groups from it.

For a co-branded store audit checklist, that field is brand presence, not store format, not franchise tier, and not daypart. A location record carries a value like "Brand A only," "Brand B only," or "Brand A plus Brand B," and the audit reads that value the moment an auditor opens the form.

The same conditional-visibility engine drives franchise tier conditional audits, which branch on ownership tier (corporate, franchisee, licensee) rather than brand, and license attribute conditional audits, which branch on regulatory license type. Same mechanism, different field on the location record.

Conditional visibility decides which questions a store sees. Nullify scoring decides that a hidden question doesn't count against the score. The two features pair, but they aren't the same mechanic.

A single-brand combo-unit location keeps its hidden second-brand items out of the score denominator, so it isn't marked down for a brand it doesn't sell.

Brand-presence branching is distinct from daypart branching, too. Some multi-concept operators flip brands by time of day rather than running two brands side by side all day, MTY Food Group's Country Style and Mr. Sub "twin" program is a documented example. That's a daypart conditional audit pattern, not a simultaneous co-branded one, and it uses the same underlying engine on yet another attribute.

For C-store operators running mixed formats, tap systems at some stores and none at others, the same brand-presence logic extends to fuel-and-QSR combo sites: one audit runs across every forecourt pairing, and irrelevant questions hide automatically per location group instead of forcing a manual template swap. This page sits inside Xenia's broader conditional audits library covering format, tier, license, equipment, and daypart attributes, worth browsing if brand presence isn't the only variable your network deals with.

Worked example, conditional visibility in action

A multi-brand operator running one combo-unit audit template with 40 questions doesn't need three separate templates. The brand-presence attribute on each site record decides which question groups render, and every site still sees the shared group that applies no matter which brand or brands operate there.

Take the format familiar from Yum Brands' 2-in-1 KFC/Taco Bell restaurants, or a c-store forecourt pairing a QSR brand with fuel operations:

Nullify scoring keeps the single-brand site from getting marked down on a brand it doesn't sell. The two-brand site's score reflects a 40-question audit. The single-brand site's score reflects whatever subset its brand-presence attribute actually surfaces.

Both are real 100 percent ceilings for what that site is responsible for, that's the combo unit audit conditional logic gap every reviewed vendor leaves unfilled.

| Tier | Condition | Question groups shown | Question groups hidden |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two-brand combo unit | Brand A and Brand B present on-site | Brand A group, Brand B group, shared infrastructure group | None |
| Single-brand unit (Brand A) | Only Brand A present on-site | Brand A group, shared infrastructure group | Brand B group |
| Single-brand unit (Brand B) | Only Brand B present on-site | Brand B group, shared infrastructure group | Brand A group |

This exact pattern is already showing up at the forecourt. Petro-Canada partnered with BarBurrito on four pilot combo locations in Ontario and Calgary, building a dedicated breakfast-burrito program for 24-hour commuter traffic.

A Little Caesars Express location opened inside a Waypoint convenience store at a Mobil-branded fuel site in Mississauga, Ontario, with grand-opening coupon redemption doubling store management's expectations. These are the exact shapes a co-branded store audit checklist has to handle: shared forecourt and fuel questions at every site, QSR-brand-specific questions only where that brand is actually installed.

That's a different pattern from running multiple brands across a portfolio, the subject of multi-brand QSR franchise operations. This page is about two brands sharing one address.

That article is about one operator running many single-brand addresses under different flags. QSR Magazine's Multi-Brand Playbook for Franchisees profiles operators like Mike Hamra running 200-plus units across four brands, evidence that multi-brand franchising is a recognized growth category. That's a portfolio-count problem, not a brand-presence-at-one-site problem, but both lean on conditional visibility somewhere in the stack.

Foodservice isn't a side hustle for convenience retail anymore.

It contributes 28.7 percent of c-store inside sales, per NACS data, which is exactly why fuel-plus-QSR combo audits need their own conditional logic instead of a fuel-only template with manual notes bolted on. Weighted audit scoring with critical-item thresholds works the same way at combo units as everywhere else: the brand-presence attribute decides what's asked, and the point values decide what matters once it's answered.

How does conditional visibility differ from static audits?

A static audit uses the same fixed question list at every location, regardless of what that location actually operates. Conditional visibility swaps or hides question groups per location automatically, based on the stored brand-presence attribute, with no manual template selection required.

|  | Static audit (no branching) | Separate template per brand pairing | Conditional visibility (one template, branch-by-brand-presence) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combo unit with two brands | Shows every question for every possible brand, or forces manual N/A marking | Requires maintaining a distinct template per brand combination | Shows both brands' groups automatically from the brand-presence attribute |
| Single-brand location | Sees irrelevant second-brand questions or gets marked down for them | Requires assigning the correct single-brand template by hand | Second brand's group hides entirely, no manual assignment |
| Template maintenance as pairings grow | Add exceptions and notes to one bloated template | Add a new template for every new pairing | Add a brand-presence value, template count stays at one |
| Scoring fairness | N/A items can count against the score | Depends on per-template scoring setup, inconsistent across templates | Nullify scoring keeps hidden items out of the denominator regardless of brand count |

Every retail and c-store audit vendor reviewed for this piece, Zenput, GoAudits, NymbleUp, and Pazo, confirms multi-brand support exists in some form.

None of them document a single template that reads a brand-presence attribute and branches automatically at the question level. Zenput operators describe customizing forms as "complex and confusing" on G2, and Xenia's own review of Zenput alternatives for multi-unit operations teams documents that lower pricing tiers cap the number of checklists deployable, a real constraint for a multi-brand operator who needs more templates, not fewer, as brand pairings expand.

That's the structural case for one branching template over a stack of static ones. See the full breakdown in Xenia vs. Zenput.

How to set up conditional visibility in Xenia

Setting up a co-branded store audit checklist takes six steps, and none of them involve writing rules or code.

This is deterministic, attribute-based branching, not an AI feature and not a general workflow builder. The same six-step pattern applies to franchise tier conditional audits, which branch on ownership tier instead of brand presence.

Once the brand-presence attribute is set at the location level, the template stays fixed even as new brand pairings launch. New locations just get tagged, and the master template does the rest.

Where do operators see results?

Operators running mixed-format c-store and restaurant networks see the payoff in fewer templates to maintain and audit scores that finally reflect what each site is responsible for. No verified public case study yet names a combo-unit-specific outcome number, but the conditional-visibility mechanic behind this page is already proven at scale in adjacent use cases.

Graham Enterprise moved off Zenput in part because conditional visibility was missing there. Zenput's checklists-only architecture meant facilities workflow lived in a separate tool, and question-level branching hit a customization ceiling. Conditional visibility and facilities workflow consolidation were the two named drivers behind that move.

Huck's uses conditional checklists to separate tap-system stores from non-tap stores, isolating temperature-log questions by equipment attribute instead of brand, the same underlying mechanic applied to a different field on the location record. ‍

Power Market runs the same frontline-ops pattern across more than 360 convenience store operations locations spanning multiple site formats, and cut task resolution time by 40 percent after consolidating onto one platform, proof that conditional visibility and the workflows built around it hold up at scale, not just in a pilot.

The corrective action layer compounds the value. A fuel price discrepancy found on a combo-unit audit routes to the DM automatically and escalates to Regional if it isn't closed within 24 hours, the same corrective-action pattern Graham Enterprise cited as a reason to leave Zenput's report-only audit data behind.

Xenia closed a $12M Series A from PSG Equity in November 2025.

That matters here because multi-brand operators need active investment in conditional-logic depth, not a frozen feature set inherited from an acquisition, the exact roadmap uncertainty mid-market operators have been weighing since Zenput moved inside Crunchtime.