What is conditional visibility?

Conditional visibility is the single feature that separates franchise audit software built for one store format from franchise audit software built for a real multi-banner system. It is branching logic on audit questions tied to each unit's location attributes. The banner on the unit record and the store format on the unit record decide which question groups render. This is deterministic location-attribute branching, not AI and not a no-code form builder for arbitrary business processes. The feature is purpose-built for ops audits, and you can read the full breakdown in our guide to how conditional visibility works in multi-location audits.

Here is the franchisor problem it solves. Brand standards vary by banner and by format. A franchisor running three banners and four formats either builds twelve templates or governs one. Twelve templates means a single new brand standard is twelve edits and twelve score scales to reconcile before the quarterly board report.

Conditional visibility pairs with a second feature called nullify scoring. Nullify scoring is the rule that makes hidden or N/A items count for nothing, so a unit is never penalized for equipment it was never supposed to have. These are two distinct features that pair: conditional visibility hides the question, and nullify scoring protects the score. A fuel-only c-store is never marked down for missing food-service equipment. A quick-service kiosk is never dinged for the flagship banner's espresso-bar items.

Conditional visibility lets you ask different questions at different locations without penalizing stores for N/A items. That is the "patios vs. no-patios" problem solved. One audit template handles 100+ format variations from a single source of truth. This is the wedge against incumbents. Zenput, now inside Crunchtime since its June 23, 2022 acquisition, has no question-level branching of the kind franchisors need. RizePoint, now a FranConnect product, sells deeper conditional logic as a heavier add-on and prices per user.

Worked example, conditional visibility in action

A franchisor running three banners and four store formats faces a clear choice when buying franchisee audit platform software: build a template per banner per format, or buy software with conditional logic and govern one. The two paths produce very different day-to-day work.

Template per banner per format. That is twelve templates to author, version, and govern. One new brand standard, say a new allergen-labeling check, means editing the same question twelve times. You also have twelve score scales to reconcile before the quarterly board report.

Conditional template (one). The banner attribute and the format attribute on each unit record decide which question groups render. The allergen question is authored once and appears everywhere it should. The template count stays at one no matter how many banners or formats the system adds.

The render counts make it concrete. A quick-service banner kiosk sees 26 questions. A full-format flagship in the premium banner sees 44. Both pull from one source of truth. For the restaurant operator weighing this, the math is simple: same audit template for 100 franchises, but units with drive-thrus see drive-thru questions, units with patios see patio questions, and units with espresso bars see espresso-bar questions. The template-sprawl decision is laid out in full in our conditional checklist vs duplicate templates framework.

The c-store variant works the same way. One audit handles tap-system stores, food-service stores, and fuel-only stores. The tap-system temperature questions render only at tap-system units. As one operator put it, the cold-temp questions come in handy because not all stores have a tap system. Fuel-only stores never see food-service equipment questions, and nullify scoring means they are not marked down for not having them. This mirrors the confirmed Huck's (FTKDM) use case: a conditional checklist for tap-system stores vs non-tap stores.

Format variation is not an edge case in these verticals. On the c-store side, foodservice now accounts for 27.7% of in-store sales and 38.6% of in-store gross-margin dollars, and only 121,852 of the 152,255 US c-stores even sell fuel, per the NACS 2024 State of the Industry data. The channel is splitting into food-service, fuel-only, and full-service formats that a single static audit template cannot fairly score. The same pattern shows up in restaurants, where brands run cafe, drive-thru, and nontraditional formats from one banner, per QSR Magazine franchising coverage.

How does conditional visibility differ from static audits?

A static audit shows every unit the same questions and scores them all on the same scale, which means a unit gets a zero on questions for equipment it never had. A conditional audit renders only the questions that apply and counts only what the unit is responsible for. For a multi-banner audit software buyer, that difference decides whether the score is trustworthy and whether the roll-up is clean.

The table below reads the difference across the dimensions a franchise compliance officer cares about.

| Dimension | Static audit (template per banner/format) | Conditional audit (one governed template) |
|---|---|---|
| Templates to govern | One per banner per format (12 for 3 banners and 4 formats) | One, regardless of banner or format count |
| Adding a new brand standard | Edit the same question in every template | Author once, renders everywhere it applies |
| N/A or missing-equipment items | Often scored as fail or zero, false negatives | Hidden by conditional visibility, nullified in scoring |
| Score scales to reconcile for board report | One per template | One |
| Roll-up reporting | Manual reconciliation across templates | Clean roll-up from one source of truth |
| Cost as you add formats and banners | Grows with template count and form-capped pricing | Flat, only location count changes |

The displacement target for most franchisors evaluating this is Zenput. The next table sets the question-level branching head-to-head, and you can see the full breakdown in our Zenput alternatives comparison.

| Capability | Zenput (Crunchtime) | Xenia |
|---|---|---|
| Question-level branching by location attribute | Limited, cited switching driver | Native conditional visibility |
| N/A scoring protection | Penalty exposure on N/A items | Nullify scoring |
| Corrective action to closure | Data lives in reports, closure manual | Audit failure auto-creates a corrective task with deadline and escalation |
| Pricing model | Form-capped or tier-based | Flat per-location |

For the c-store compliance officer, nullify scoring is the line that matters. Fuel-only stores do not get marked down for missing food-service equipment, and tap-system stores are not penalized at non-tap units. The audit reflects what the location actually does, not what the template thinks it should. That is also where corrective action separates Xenia from audit-only tools. Most platforms collect audit data. Few drive it to closure. A fuel-price discrepancy found on a c-store audit creates a corrective task to the DM, and it escalates to Regional if it is not done in 24 hours. That closure gap is exactly why Graham Enterprise left Zenput, where the audit data lived in reports.

How to set up conditional visibility in Xenia

Setting up conditional visibility in Xenia takes six steps, and the work front-loads onto the location records so the template stays simple. Tag the units first, build one template, then attach the rules. Here is the order.

1. Tag every unit with its attributes. On each location record, set the banner and the store format, plus any equipment attributes like tap system or drive-thru. These attributes drive everything downstream.
2. Build one audit template. Author each brand-standard question once. Group questions by the attribute that should control them: a banner group, a format group, an equipment group.
3. Attach conditional visibility rules to each question group. Set the rule so a group renders only when the unit's attribute matches. Show the tap-system temperature questions only when the store format is tap system.
4. Turn on nullify scoring for the conditional groups. This makes hidden items count for nothing, so a unit is never penalized for questions it never saw.
5. Set weighted scoring and thresholds. Critical items like food safety and fuel pricing get higher point values. Cosmetic items get less. The score then tracks what matters. This step is optional but recommended.
6. Roll out and verify with a render check. Open the audit as a kiosk-format unit and as a flagship unit. Confirm the kiosk sees its reduced 26-question set and the flagship sees the full 44-question set from the same template.

Build time is the usual fear with franchise rollouts. The AI Template Agent converts existing SOP PDFs into digital forms with conditional logic baked in, which cuts a franchise template build from a multi-week effort to days. Newk's Eatery ran 100+ franchise automation in one rollout on that path.

Where do operators see results?

Operators see the payoff in three places. The template count drops to one. The audit scores finally separate signal from noise. And the quarterly roll-up stops being a reconciliation project. These are the outcomes a franchise compliance officer brings to the QBR and the board review.

The named anchors back it up:

• Graham Enterprise migrated from Zenput to Xenia, with conditional visibility and facilities workflow as the drivers. Zenput was checklists-only, so audit data lived in reports and closure was manual. This is the c-store conditional-visibility displacement that defines the page.
• Ace Retail Group migrated from Bindy to Xenia for enterprise audit consolidation, comms in one place, and multi-banner support. This is the multi-banner consolidation anchor for a franchisor running several brands under one roof.
• Huck's (FTKDM) runs a conditional checklist for tap-system stores vs non-tap stores, which validates conditional visibility in the c-store seat.
• Dave's Hot Chicken migrated from RizePoint at 321 locations for weighted scoring, Bluetooth thermometers, and corrective action. RizePoint scored a missing patio chair the same as a temp violation. Weighted and nullify scoring fixed it.

The pricing math is the quiet differentiator for the BOFU buyer. Flat per-location pricing means the only line item that changes as you add banners or formats is location count, not template count and not form count. That contrasts with Zenput's form-capped model and Bindy's per-seat model. We keep exact numbers on the per-location pricing page. For a franchisor weighing vendor longevity, Xenia closed a $12M Series A from PSG Equity in November 2025, while Zenput has sat inside Crunchtime since its 2022 acquisition. If you are still scoping the broader buy, the multi-location audit software buyer's guide and the franchise self-audit software overview cover the adjacent decisions, and the conditional audits overview is the hub for this whole topic.