It's mentioned in the article actually, in the later section on Mitoshi Matsumoto; he closed early and made more $$$.
In a way, you’re almost just like an employee of the franchisor, but without any of the benefits and a lot more liability. But it’s a great relationship for the person selling the franchise.
But as long as they can make other people pay for their business decisions, that will, of course, not happen.
The point is to diffuse risk, standardize the brand, and allow local owners to decide the things which don't affect the brand, in the service of their own interests (including whether or not to continue operating the location).
A franchise where the owner bears a small minority of the risk might as well just be centrally owned.
eventually, 7-11 will be known as a place where you're likely to encounter sick children lying on chairs at 10pm because the franchisee's family is living in the store. eventually that might actually damage the brand enough that they'd remove some of the stipulations.
> One Monday night in late March, only 10 customers came to the man’s store in the three hours before dawn, and the sales during that time were a little more than ¥6,000. The store will be in the red if he hired someone for night shifts.
Smart management would close the store during those hours. Of course, the franchise doesn't care for smart management - when the operator eats the loss.