feat(orders): a fifth verdict, 'bad', between ok and never again

The jump from "OK" to "Never again" is too big and most
disappointments live in the gap (user, 2026-07-28) — so a merely poor
meal either flattered itself as OK or got blacklisted.

Only 'never' raises the warning on a future order. A blacklist that fires
for every mediocre delivery is one nobody reads, so 'bad' records the
disappointment without triggering the alarm. Both set order_again = false
— you would not choose either again — and that split between "would I
order it" and "warn me about it" is the point of the extra level.

Migration widens the CHECK; nothing is removed, so no existing row needs
mapping.

prisma/migrations/0025_order_rating_bad/migration.sql

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+-- A fifth verdict: "bad", between "ok" and "never".
+--
+-- "OK" to "Never again" is a big jump and most disappointments live in the gap
+-- (user, 2026-07-28). Without it, a merely poor meal either flatters itself as
+-- OK or gets blacklisted, and the blacklist is the signal that has to stay
+-- sharp — `warn` remains exclusive to 'never' so it is not diluted by every
+-- mediocre delivery.
+--
+-- Safe as a straight widening: no existing row uses a value being removed,
+-- because nothing is being removed.
+ALTER TABLE order_reviews DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS chk_order_review_rating;
+
+ALTER TABLE order_reviews ADD CONSTRAINT chk_order_review_rating
+  CHECK (rating IS NULL OR rating IN ('loved', 'liked', 'ok', 'bad', 'never'));

src/__tests__/integration/order-reviews.test.ts

@@ -92,6 +92,25 @@ describe("order verdicts — one per person", () => {
     expect(body.reviews[0].order_again).toBe(false);
     body = await (await PUT(req({ rating: "ok" }), params(txnId))).json();
     expect(body.reviews[0].order_again).toBe(true);
+    // "bad" is also a no — you would not choose it again.
+    body = await (await PUT(req({ rating: "bad" }), params(txnId))).json();
+    expect(body.reviews[0].order_again).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it("only `never` raises the warning, not `bad`", async () => {
+    // The boundary the five-level scale exists for. A blacklist that fires for
+    // every mediocre meal is one nobody reads, so "bad" records the
+    // disappointment without triggering the alarm.
+    const older = await seedOrder("Thai Palace", "2026-06-01");
+    await PUT(req({ participant_id: ownerId, rating: "bad" }), params(older));
+
+    let body = await (await GET(req(), params(txnId))).json();
+    expect(body.merchant.counts.bad).toBe(1);
+    expect(body.merchant.warn).toBe(false);
+
+    await PUT(req({ participant_id: ownerId, rating: "never" }), params(older));
+    body = await (await GET(req(), params(txnId))).json();
+    expect(body.merchant.warn).toBe(true);
   });
 });
 

src/app/api/slack/interactive/route.ts

@@ -341,7 +341,8 @@ async function setRating(transactionId: number, participantId: number, rating: R
        SET rating = EXCLUDED.rating,
            order_again = EXCLUDED.order_again,
            updated_at = now()`,
-    [transactionId, participantId, rating, rating !== "never"]
+    // "bad" and "never" both mean no; only "never" warns on a future order.
+    [transactionId, participantId, rating, rating !== "never" && rating !== "bad"]
   );
 }
 

src/app/api/transactions/[id]/review/route.ts

@@ -155,10 +155,12 @@ export async function PUT(
     )
     .map((v) => ({ item: v.item.trim(), verdict: v.verdict }));
 
-  // `order_again` is derived when the caller does not say. "never" is the only
-  // rating that answers the question on its own; "ok" is not a refusal.
+  // `order_again` is derived when the caller does not say. "bad" and "never"
+  // both answer no — you would not choose either again — but only "never"
+  // raises the warning on a future order, so the blacklist stays sharp.
   const orderAgain =
-    body.order_again ?? (rating === null ? null : rating !== "never");
+    body.order_again ??
+    (rating === null ? null : rating !== "never" && rating !== "bad");
 
   await queryRow(
     `INSERT INTO order_reviews (transaction_id, participant_id, rating, order_again, note, item_verdicts)

src/components/order-details.tsx

@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ const RATING_LABEL: Record<OrderRating, string> = {
   loved: "Loved it",
   liked: "Liked it",
   ok: "OK",
+  bad: "Bad",
   never: "Never again",
 };
 
@@ -40,10 +41,11 @@ const RATING_STYLE: Record<OrderRating, string> = {
   loved: "border-emerald-600 bg-emerald-950 text-emerald-300",
   liked: "border-emerald-800 bg-emerald-950/50 text-emerald-400",
   ok: "border-zinc-600 bg-zinc-800 text-zinc-300",
+  bad: "border-amber-800 bg-amber-950 text-amber-300",
   never: "border-red-800 bg-red-950 text-red-300",
 };
 
-const RATING_ORDER: OrderRating[] = ["loved", "liked", "ok", "never"];
+const RATING_ORDER: OrderRating[] = ["loved", "liked", "ok", "bad", "never"];
 
 /**
  * The receipt behind a delivery order: what was actually bought, where it went,

src/lib/hooks.ts

@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ export function useOrderReceipt(transactionId: number) {
   });
 }
 
-export type OrderRating = "loved" | "liked" | "ok" | "never";
+export type OrderRating = "loved" | "liked" | "ok" | "bad" | "never";
 export type ItemVerdict = "loved" | "never";
 
 export interface ItemOpinion {

src/lib/order-reviews.ts

@@ -26,14 +26,19 @@ import { queryRaw, queryRow } from "@/lib/db";
  */
 
 /**
- * Four levels, because three collapsed the distinction that decides a
- * re-order: "loved" and "liked" are both "would order again", but only one is
- * worth going out of your way for, and "ok" is not a recommendation at all
- * (user, 2026-07-28).
+ * Five levels. Three collapsed the distinction that decides a re-order —
+ * "loved" and "liked" are both "would order again" but only one is worth going
+ * out of your way for, and "ok" is not a recommendation at all. "bad" was added
+ * because the jump from "ok" to "never again" is too big and most
+ * disappointments live in the gap (user, 2026-07-28).
+ *
+ * Only "never" raises the warning on a future order. A blacklist that fires for
+ * every mediocre meal stops being read, so "bad" records the disappointment
+ * without triggering the alarm.
  */
-export type Rating = "loved" | "liked" | "ok" | "never";
+export type Rating = "loved" | "liked" | "ok" | "bad" | "never";
 
-export const RATINGS: Rating[] = ["loved", "liked", "ok", "never"];
+export const RATINGS: Rating[] = ["loved", "liked", "ok", "bad", "never"];
 
 /**
  * Per-item opinions, keyed by the line item's description.
@@ -85,7 +90,11 @@ export interface MerchantVerdict {
     transaction_date: string | null;
   }[];
   counts: Record<Rating, number>;
-  /** True when this merchant has ever been marked `never`. */
+  /**
+   * True when this merchant has ever been marked `never` — and ONLY `never`.
+   * "bad" is deliberately excluded: the warning is a blacklist, and one that
+   * fires for every mediocre meal is one nobody reads.
+   */
   warn: boolean;
   /**
    * What to get and what to avoid here, pooled across every order from this
@@ -163,7 +172,7 @@ export async function merchantVerdict(
     [merchant, exclude]
   );
 
-  const counts: Record<Rating, number> = { loved: 0, liked: 0, ok: 0, never: 0 };
+  const counts: Record<Rating, number> = { loved: 0, liked: 0, ok: 0, bad: 0, never: 0 };
   for (const r of rows) if (r.rating) counts[r.rating] += 1;
 
   // Pool item opinions across orders. Case-folded because the same dish comes

src/lib/slack-blocks.ts

@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ const RATING_LABEL: Record<Rating, string> = {
   loved: "Loved it",
   liked: "Liked it",
   ok: "OK",
+  bad: "Bad",
   never: "Never again",
 };