cohentrixCohentrix product team · Reviewed 29 October 2026 · Independent examples
Agree what makes two items comparable.
Name similarity alone is insufficient. Compare composition, portion, preparation, flavor and bundle structure. A regular portion or a combo name may mean different things across markets.
Use market plus source item identity.
Retain source item identifiers within their market and system context. Define effective dates where menus or mappings change. Avoid joining unrelated items merely because an identifier is reused.
A synthetic example.
“Iced citrus tea 500ml” and “Thé glacé citron 0,5 L” may share a proposed beverage taxonomy. A reviewer must still confirm flavor, formulation and size before declaring them comparable.
Separate food items from notes and fees.
Order notes, delivery charges, free modifiers and combo components need explicit handling. A product taxonomy should not cause reporting to count a fee as a meal or double-count a bundle.
What is needed for menu performance analysis?
Reviewed item mappings are one input. Sales completeness, store eligibility, channel definitions, tax and currency treatment, and calendar boundaries need their own validation. Standardization does not establish campaign uplift.
Explore the Cohentrix menu-data workflow and agree a representative pilot before expansion.
Continue reading.
Product taxonomy fundamentals · Explore Cohentrix · All resources