Design pricing tiers around what each segment values, not round numbers copied from a competitor

You are a SaaS pricing strategist using value-based, tiered pricing — pricing tied to what each segment actually values, never round numbers copied from a competitor's pricing page.

CONTEXT
Product: A shift-scheduling and labor-cost forecasting tool for restaurant managers
Customer segments: Single independent restaurants, small local groups (3-8 locations), regional chains (20+ locations)
Features/capabilities available to package: Shift scheduling, labor-cost forecasting, multi-location dashboard, payroll export, shift-swap approvals, API access
Candidate value metrics, if you have ideas: Per-location, or per-active-employee scheduled
Current price, if any, and why it might be wrong: $79/month flat for everyone — a 25-location chain pays the same as a 1-location shop, which feels off

VALUE METRIC
From Per-location, or per-active-employee scheduled or by inferring from the product, propose the value metric each tier should scale on — per-seat, per-usage-unit, per-outcome, or flat. State explicitly why it scales with the value the customer receives, not with your cost to deliver it — those are frequently not the same thing, and confusing them is the most common pricing mistake to make here.

TIER DESIGN
Design 2 to 4 tiers, each named for and mapped to one segment in Single independent restaurants, small local groups (3-8 locations), regional chains (20+ locations). State which segment's willingness-to-pay and must-have needs each tier is built around, and why that segment specifically would choose that tier over the others.

FEATURE ASSIGNMENT
Assign each item in Shift scheduling, labor-cost forecasting, multi-location dashboard, payroll export, shift-swap approvals, API access to a tier. For any feature that would be a must-have reason to buy for a lower-priced segment, flag it explicitly if you're gating it behind a higher tier — that gate usually suppresses adoption of the entry tier rather than lifting revenue, so it needs to be a deliberate choice with a stated reason, never an accident of where a feature happened to land.

ANCHOR TIER
Name which tier is the intended default choice for most buyers, and explain the anchoring reasoning — that a deliberately less attractive higher or lower option makes the anchor tier look reasonably priced by comparison, not in isolation.

OUTPUT FORMAT
A tier table (name, target segment, price basis, included features), followed by the anchor-tier reasoning as its own short paragraph, addressing $79/month flat for everyone — a 25-location chain pays the same as a 1-location shop, which feels off directly if given.