What matters is whether the work itself is the same at every location, not whether the locations are the same. If intake, reporting, scheduling or customer messaging follows one process everywhere, a single system can run that process for every site, with location as just another field, store number, region, branch, rather than a separate build each time. That is how most software already treats multi-site operations, and it is the same logic underneath an agentic operations system: it reads a situation, decides what to do, acts through the tools connected to it, and checks the result, per location, on its own schedule.
Where this breaks is when locations are not actually running the same process. If one branch uses a different point-of-sale, a different phone system, or a manager who overrides decisions the others do not, that is a real difference the system has to be told about, not something it can guess. Language is usually fine to handle this way: we run our own content pipeline in seven languages off one shared engine, so multiplying by language, or by location, is not different in kind. Multiplying by a genuinely different workflow is.
In practice we map the manual work at each location before building anything, and say plainly which parts are actually shared and which are not. A retail chain where every store follows the same restock and reporting process is a good fit for one system. A group of locations that each run their own way, with no common process to build against, usually is not, and building five different systems and calling it one is its own kind of failure. We run our own operation this way too: 110+ scheduled jobs across 40+ integrations, 88 systems in production, one shared foundation underneath all of it.