EXF has always been and still is intended for checklanes and non planogrammed endcaps. These are the only area that you should ever shoot an EXF for. Overuse and incorrect use of EXF leads to a wonky sales accumulator. Try dropping a pog fill. If the accumulator is right, or somewhat close to being right, you should get some stuff. Fill from the home. Make a list and use subt. Outs and research are the way to go if you still get nothing. When you do use EXF for an approved reason, make sure you only request what you need.
A lot of stores and ETLs see EXFs as the answer to all their problems when it reality it creates many more problems. EXF can fill an aisle or an endcap for the short term, but it screws up the accumulator in the long run. Using EXF to fill an actual planogram is just treating the symptoms, not the actual cause of the replenishment problem (and adding to the replenishment problem)!
Per best practice pog should be scanning stand alone research after they're done setting, filling, and backstocking. If something has multiple salesfloor locations they need to spread out what is on the floor, or key what they see if it is less than enough to fill all facings for both locations. If your scans with location score is blowing up after new sets, something is wrong with either your PTM process or capacities are off for another reason. Using EXFs will help keep your score green after pog sets an aisle, but that EXF will usually create replenishment problems down the road. Basically either take the hit now and work on the issue, but have an accurate accumulator, or run with an off accumulator and take the hit later while experiencing replenishment issues until it is fixed.
from what i know about IS i would think that this is the best course of action. however, when the stores tie the outs with location score to the IS team itself it makes a conflict of interest to let the scanning fix the store - and do what it takes to make that score green (which i know my STL has said, and is probably not alone). It would make much more sense that instead of tying that score to that particular team (in that a red IS score reflects badly on the IS team) it should be treated as more of a temperature reading for the store. i know for a fact that our IS team gets in trouble if they have too many hits, it just seems like the wrong approach. since continual scanning in research is supposed to fix the score anyway - but is blocked by these other measures used to bring up the score vs correct the issues in the store.