AI Consultancy for SMB concept service

Consultancy offering for small/medium businesses built on the AI Project Governance Standard — v3.9 ratified; v4.0 business layer built but unratified (CR-012 pending) — plus a tested reference webapp. Service catalog, pricing and first client are still missing.

Why we hold it: Monetise the governance standard you already wrote: SMBs adopting AI need intake, business cases, and value tracking they don't have. The asset is finished; the missing pieces are packaging (service catalog, pricing) and the first paying engagement.

⏱ 60d in stage (since 2026-08-01)🔄 last update 2026-09-18

Finished governance asset — v3.9 ratified, v4.0 business layer unratified, tested webapp — 0 priced offers, 0 clients; gate due 2026-11-30.

Reviewed

Problem

SMBs adopting AI lack the intake, business-case and value-tracking discipline this standard mandates — and the portfolio's answer is written but unmonetised.

Purpose

Package the standard into three priced offers, run the consultancy through its own v4.0 business-plan mandate, and open a revenue path (first paid engagement by 2026-12-31) — or consciously fold its go-to-market into the EMS decision.

🧭 Deepest asset in the portfolio, zero traction — zombie riskStage conceptBudget $0Next gate 2026-11-30Open actions 2

idea›concept›validation›build›market›revenue

Deepest asset in the portfolio, zero traction — zombie riskDecision point: Concept → Validationin 61d (2026-11-30)

Finished governance asset — v3.9 ratified, v4.0 business layer unratified, tested webapp — 0 priced offers, 0 clients; gate due 2026-11-30.

✅ Proceed when

A first engagement is sellable at consulting rates using the standard as the delivery method

⏸ Park when

If merged into the EMS product go-to-market and the combined discovery shows no consultancy demand

⛔ Kill when

Two quarters of outreach with no paid engagement while the product track moves — keep assets, close the record

💡 Advisor: 2026-09-12: The governance standard is the deepest asset in the portfolio but consultancy sells hours you don't have spare. Its best use may be as the delivery methodology INSIDE the other opportunities (EMS product, HAD commercialisation) rather than a standalone shopfront. Decide at the shared-GTM review.

concept

Stage

60d in stage

Budget

Portfolio record (cash_committed 0 · cash_spent 0 · hours untracked)

Open actions

owner-owed

High/critical risks

of 6 total

Unvalidated assumptions

of 5

Open issues

live

🗺️ Engagement Flow — Stages, Gate & Exits

DoneCurrentPlannedGatePark (dashed)Kill (dashed)

⚠️ What could sink it — top risks

RSK-01No demand evidence: zero discovery conversations; the market problem is portfolio thesis, not measured need.high 16

RSK-02Consultancy sells founder hours the portfolio says are not spare — bandwidth concentration with NDIS and EMS both ahead of it in priority.high 16

RSK-03Unsellable as packaged: no service catalog, no pricing — nothing can be bought.high 12

✅ What to do next

ACT-001Write the service catalog (3 offers with prices) + the consultancy's own business_plan.json2026-10-31

ACT-002Resolve ACT-004 dependency: shared go-to-market with Engineering Management Suite or separate2026-10-31

Gate criteria — Concept → Validation

Service catalog with pricing
business_plan.json per own v4.0 standard (practise what you sell)
First discovery conversation with a prospective SMB client

🔍 Dig deeper

⚡ Execution 🗺️ Plan & Actions 🧠 Intelligence 💰 Value & Money 🎯 Strategy 🧰 Resources 📜 Charter

📜Charter

The market problem (no AI governance discipline in SMBs) has a finished answer sitting unsold; the actual gap is packaging, one GTM decision, and first demand evidence. · Turn a sunk, finished governance asset into either a sellable consultancy or a deliberate delivery-methodology contribution to the other opportunities — decided once at the ACT-004 review, never drifted.

🗣 Problem Statement

The portfolio's thesis (asserted, not yet market-validated) is that SMBs adopting AI need intake, business cases and value tracking they don't have: AI spend proceeds with no mandatory business plan, no lifecycle cost-benefit (NPV/IRR/payback) and no benefits-realisation tracking. The consultancy was built as the answer — the AI Project Governance Standard (Parts A–I) plus a v4.0 business layer (REQ-BUS-001..015) and a working reference webapp. But the asset is finished while the business is not: no service catalog, no pricing, no business_plan.json for the consultancy itself (it fails its own intake mandate), and zero discovery conversations with prospective clients. The strategy review names this a zombie-risk record — a finished asset consuming attention without producing evidence while founder hours are committed to NDIS and EMS.

Pain points (severity)

Nothing can be bought: zero priced offers, no service catalog

5/5

Founder bandwidth: ~0.5 h/wk allocated vs NDIS/EMS priorities

4/5

Market demand is asserted, not evidenced — no discovery conversations held

4/5

Self-compliance gap: the consultancy fails its own v4.0 intake mandate (REQ-BUS-001)

4/5

Same buyer and assets as EMS Suite; duplicated go-to-market while ACT-004 stays open

3/5

Evidence & sources

Record KPIs (2026-09-12): service catalog 'No', own business_plan.json 'No' (per v4.0 standard), paying engagements 0
v4.0 Business Layer mandates exactly what SMBs lack: business plan at intake, NPV/IRR/payback CBA, options analysis, benefits realization, sensitivity analysis (REQ-BUS-001..015)
PORTFOLIO_STRATEGY.md §2: HAD Digital and AI Consultancy are 'zombie risk' records — each needs one conversation to open a revenue path or close cleanly
Advisor note 2026-09-12: consultancy sells hours the founder doesn't have spare; best use may be as the delivery methodology inside EMS/HAD

🎯 Purpose & Objectives

Turn a sunk, finished governance asset into either a sellable consultancy or a deliberate delivery-methodology contribution to the other opportunities — decided once at the ACT-004 review, never drifted.

Objectives

OBJ-1

Package the offering: service catalog with 3 offers and prices (ACT-001)

Measure: Catalog exists with 3 priced offers

planned

OBJ-2

Practise what you sell: business_plan.json for the consultancy per its own v4.0 standard

Measure: Passes build_business_plan.py --check; BUSINESS_PLAN_A3.html generated (REQ-BUS-001 acceptance)

planned

OBJ-3

Resolve the shared go-to-market with the EMS Suite (ACT-004)

Measure: Decision recorded once, in one place

planned

OBJ-4

Ratify v4.0: REQ-BUS rows PROPOSED → RATIFIED, CR-012 raised, controlled .docx merged

Measure: Standard status no longer 'BUILT, UNVERIFIED'

planned

OBJ-5

First discovery conversation with a prospective SMB client (gate criterion)

Measure: ≥1 conversation held and logged

planned

OBJ-6

First paying engagement

Measure: 1 engagement invoiced by 2026-12-31 (record KPI target)

planned

📐 Scope

Covers commercial packaging of the existing standard (service catalog, pricing, the consultancy's own business_plan.json), the v4.0 ratification, the shared-GTM decision with EMS, and first discovery conversations through the Concept→Validation gate. Excludes writing more standard, building product, and delivering engagements — post-gate or other records' work.

✅ In scope

Service catalog: 3 offers with prices (ACT-001)
The consultancy's own business_plan.json + BUSINESS_PLAN_A3.html (REQ-BUS-001 self-compliance)
Shared-GTM decision with the EMS Suite (ACT-004)
v4.0 ratification: REQ-BUS rows ratified, CR-012 raised, controlled .docx merged, rollout pack updated
First discovery conversations with prospective SMB clients
Concept → Validation gate review (due 2026-11-30)

⛔ Out of scope

New standard content beyond v4.0 (no further requirements before the gate)
Productising the governance toolkit (Engineering Management Suite territory)
Delivering full client engagements (post-gate work)
Hiring associates or subcontractors
Marketing execution beyond discovery conversations
Editing project folders — authoritative registers stay in their own trees

Constraints

Founder hours: ~0.5 h/wk near-term per the portfolio strategyZero cash: assets are sunk; packaging is time-onlyv4.0 unratified until Zaid signs ('BUILT, UNVERIFIED')ACT-004 is a portfolio-level decision — made once, in one placeActions due 2026-10-31; gate due 2026-11-30

💰Value & Money

Governance-first AI adoption for SMBs, delivered against a codified standard instead of slideware: mandatory business plans at intake, lifecycle cost-benefit with NPV/IRR/payback, options analysis and benefits-realisation tracking — with a working, tested reference webapp as proof the method is real.

💎 Value Proposition

Value drivers

Business-layer mandates

15 requirements (REQ-BUS-001..015)

v4.0 mandates business plan at intake, NPV/IRR/payback CBA, options analysis, value propositions with measurement methods, running costs, marketing strategy, revenue models, risk identification, efficiency audits, benefits realization, sensitivity analysis, strategic alignment.

Standard depth

9 parts (A–I) · 55-line compliance audit

v3.9 spans systems-engineering core, agent orchestration, change control, assurance, operations, Help Hub and closure discipline; Part I runs 55 checks before any delivery.

Framework alignment

PRINCE2 · PMI PMBOK · TOGAF · OGC Gateway

v4.0 maps each mandate to industry elements (Business Case, Benefits Management, Business Architecture, Value for Money); also Lean Startup and ISO 21500. v3.9 is grounded in ISO 15288/29148, INCOSE, NASA, EIA-649, ISO 31000, IEEE 1012, OWASP.

Reference implementation

16 tests passing · 1-command start

Deploy-anywhere pure-Python webapp (CR-010, 2026-09-01): named-user scrypt logins with 5-fail lockout, pluggable AI-engine adapters (GLM first; Kimi/Gemini/Claude/GPT per project), guard tests against prompt injection and DNS rebinding.

Mechanical checking

24 instruction checks · 12 business-plan rules (C-BP1..12)

The standard ships checkers, not promises: business plans validate mechanically; generated projections regenerate and fail loudly when stale.

Revenue model: Not yet defined — pricing tiers to be defined in the service catalog (ACT-001). Candidate per the record thesis: consulting-rate engagements with the standard as the delivery method; fixed-price packages and a productised toolkit are alternatives to price at packaging.

⚖️ Cost–Benefit Analysis

Zero cash cost and sunk asset-building time; the only real cost now is packaging hours against a scarce founder budget. Benefits are unquantified because pricing does not exist — no revenue figures are invented here.

PaybackUnknown until pricing is defined (ACT-001).

Costs vs benefits (scaled)

Asset build to date (standard v1→v4.0 + reference webapp) time sunk — concept stage

Service catalog + own business_plan.json (ACT-001) time packaging (by 2026-10-31)

Discovery conversations and GTM decision time validation (by 2026-11-30)

Cash outlay cash none to date

First paid engagement (target by 2026-12-31) yr 1 — amount unknown until priced

Methodology leverage inside EMS / HAD commercialisation ongoing — unquantified

Method & assumptions

Cash figures are the record's own (cash_committed 0, cash_spent 0). Amounts are 0 rather than estimates — the dashboard should show no benefit bars until the catalog prices something. Kill rule already pre-committed: two quarters of outreach with no paid engagement → close the record, keep the assets.

🎯Strategy

Monetise a finished asset with minimum new build: package the standard into three priced offers, prove self-compliance with the consultancy's own business_plan.json, settle the shared go-to-market with the EMS Suite at ACT-004, then let one discovery conversation — not more authoring — decide whether demand exists. Default path is a standalone consultancy; the advisor's alternative, keeping the standard as the delivery methodology inside the other opportunities, is decided at the same review.

🧭 High-Level Strategy

📍 Positioning

Governance-first AI adoption for SMBs: sell the discipline (intake, business case, value tracking) backed by a codified, mechanically-checked standard and a working reference implementation — proof, not slideware.

🏰 Moat / defensibility

Asset depth, not market position: nine standard parts, a 55-line audit, templates, checkers and a tested webapp took real authoring time to accumulate. But there is no brand, client base or switching-cost moat, and the assets overlap EMS — do not underwrite defensibility.

Strategic options

Standalone consultancy with the standard as delivery method (record's current path) adopted

Cleanest story and 1–3 month time-to-cash per the strategy table; consumes founder hours the portfolio says are scarce.

Fold the go-to-market into the EMS Suite (one brand to the same buyer) watching

Removes duplicated discovery and RSK-04; risks subsuming service revenue under a product bet still in its own discovery.

Keep the standard as internal delivery methodology; close the consultancy record watching

Frees hours for NDIS/EMS but forfeits the portfolio's only near-term service revenue line — the advisor's honest fallback.

Sell before packaging (engage clients with no catalog or prices) rejected

Fastest on paper; unsellable in practice and breaches the pre-committed gate discipline.

🚦 Decision Rules (pre-committed)

✅ Proceed when

A first engagement is sellable at consulting rates using the standard as the delivery method

⏸ Park when

If merged into the EMS product go-to-market and the combined discovery shows no consultancy demand

⛔ Kill when

Two quarters of outreach with no paid engagement while the product track moves — keep assets, close the record

💡 Advisor note

2026-09-12: The governance standard is the deepest asset in the portfolio but consultancy sells hours you don't have spare. Its best use may be as the delivery methodology INSIDE the other opportunities (EMS product, HAD commercialisation) rather than a standalone shopfront. Decide at the shared-GTM review.

🗺️Plan & Actualisation7

7 actualisation steps · 0 done · 0 active · next: Write the service catalog — 3 offers with prices (ACT-001, due 2026-10-31)

🧭 Dependency Map — Steps to Actualisation

Arrows show what each step needs before it can start; the longest left-to-right chain is the critical path.

DoneCurrentPlannedGate

📅 Stages & Time

Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026Dec 2026

Standard build (concept stage → v3.9)

2026-08 → 2026-09

Reference implementation (webapp, CR-010)

2026-09

Business layer v4.0 (built, unratified)

2026-09

Ratification + commercial packaging

2026-09 → 2026-10

Validation gate (discovery conversations)

2026-10 → 2026-11

Validation — first engagement window (target)

2026-11 → 2026-12

🪜 Steps to Actualisation

Click any step to expand its sub-steps, owner and dependencies.

Write the service catalog — 3 offers with prices (ACT-001, due 2026-10-31) planned

Phase: Commercial packagingOwner: Zaid

Pricing tiers to be defined
Shape offers around the v3.9 project classes (MICRO/STANDARD/MAJOR) so ceremony fits SMB scale

Create the consultancy's own business_plan.json + BUSINESS_PLAN_A3.html (REQ-BUS-001 self-compliance) planned

Phase: Commercial packagingOwner: Zaid

Must pass build_business_plan.py --check (C-BP1..12)
Gate criterion: 'practise what you sell'

Ratify v4.0 (REQ-BUS rows PROPOSED → RATIFIED) and raise CR-012 planned

Phase: RatificationOwner: Zaid

Currently 'BUILT, UNVERIFIED'
Merge into controlled .docx; add exemplar business_plan.json; update rollout pack

Resolve ACT-004: shared go-to-market with Engineering Management Suite or separate (due 2026-10-31) planned

Phase: Commercial packagingOwner: ZaidDepends on: S1

Portfolio-level decision — make once, in one place
Advisor recommendation: fold this GTM into EMS rather than run two brands

First discovery conversation with a prospective SMB client planned

Phase: ValidationOwner: ZaidDepends on: S1, S4

Also discharges the strategy's 'one conversation this month' zombie-risk fix

Gate review: Concept → Validation (due 2026-11-30) planned

Phase: ValidationOwner: ZaidDepends on: S1, S2, S5

Criteria: priced catalog, own business_plan.json per v4.0, first discovery conversation

First paid engagement (record KPI target: 1 by 2026-12-31) planned

Phase: ValidationOwner: ZaidDepends on: S6

Kill rule if it never lands: two quarters of outreach with no paid engagement → close record, keep assets

🔁 Development Process

Asset-first, package-second: the standard and its reference implementation were built under the governance method itself (CR-controlled, checker-verified, projection-generated). The remaining build is commercial packaging run under the portfolio's stage-gates — no new standard content before the Concept→Validation gate.

Standard build›Reference implementation›Business layer addition›Ratification›Commercial packaging›Validation

Standard build

Authoring and versioning the governance standard to v3.9 (controlled .docx + generated text projections).

v3.9 Standard
text projection
portable layer (PIL v1.4)

Reference implementation

CR-010 webapp proving the mandatory web-application function (GOV-B7.4).

WEBAPP_REFERENCE app + adapters
16-test suite
Dockerfile

Business layer addition

v4.0 PIL-BZ layer: business-plan mandate, UC15 /SE-BUSINESS, SP07 efficiency audit, templates and checkers.

v4.0 Business Layer Addition
business_plan schema + A3 generator (C-BP1..12)

Ratification

Zaid ratifies the REQ-BUS rows; CR-012 raised; merged into the controlled .docx; rollout pack updated; other portfolio projects get the layer.

ratified v4.0
CR-012
updated rollout pack

Commercial packaging

Service catalog (3 offers + prices) and the consultancy's own business_plan.json — practising the standard it sells.

service catalog
own business_plan.json + BUSINESS_PLAN_A3.html
ACT-004 GTM decision

Validation

First discovery conversations with prospective SMB clients; gate review Concept → Validation.

discovery notes
gate decision by 2026-11-30

🧰Resources

Single-founder packaging effort at ~0.5 h/wk, with the AI advisor reviewing fortnightly across the portfolio. The heavy assets (standard, webapp) are already built and need no further investment.

💵 Budget

Total budget: $0 · Source: Portfolio record (cash_committed 0 · cash_spent 0 · hours untracked)

Allocation by phase (bar = allocated, amber = spent)

Ratification (CR-012, docx merge)

— / —

Packaging (catalog, own business_plan.json)

— / —

Validation (discovery conversations)

— / —

Time is the real budget: the strategy allocates ~0.5 h/wk near-term. Keep amounts 0 until the catalog prices something.

🧾 Investment Ledger

Cash committed ($)

total committed

Cash spent ($)

to date

Hours invested

founder time

Capital at risk: Packaging time only; assets already sunk.

👥 People & Tools

People

Name	Role	Commitment	h/week
Zaid Al Dabbag	Owner · standard author · sole (prospective) consultant	Packaging + one discovery conversation, evenings around other priorities	0.5
AI advisor (ZCode)	Advisor / portfolio review	Fortnightly flip-through; ACT-004 recommendation	0.5

Tools

Tool	Purpose	Cost
AI Project Governance Standard v3.9 (shared layer)	The core sellable asset; single controlled copy in shared/governance	sunk — founder time
v4.0 Business Layer Addition	Business-planning mandates, UC15 /SE-BUSINESS, SP07, templates + A3 generator	sunk — founder time
WEBAPP_REFERENCE	Deploy-anywhere reference implementation; demonstrable proof asset	sunk — founder time
Portal Consultancy tab	Live marketing surface already rendering the 12-capability mandate table	none

🤝 Stakeholders

Keep informed · high interest / low influence

AI advisor (ZCode) championProspective SMB clients neutral

Manage closely · high / high

Zaid Al Dabbag champion

Monitor · low / low

Engineering Management Suite (portfolio record) neutralOther portfolio projects (standard consumers) supportive

Keep satisfied · low interest / high influence

none mapped

Full stakeholder register (5)

Name	Role	Interest	Influence	Needs / notes
Zaid Al Dabbag	Owner / author / sole consultant	high	high	One packaging pass and one GTM decision — then evidence, not more authoring
AI advisor (ZCode)	Advisor	high	low	Honest gate calls; zombie risk closed one way or the other
Prospective SMB clients	Market / revenue	high	low	Clear priced offers; SMB-appropriate ceremony — none met yet
Engineering Management Suite (portfolio record)	Sibling opportunity — same buyer, same governance assets	med	med	ACT-004 decided once, jointly, before either spends outreach hours
Other portfolio projects (standard consumers)	Users of the shared governance layer	med	low	Standard stays versioned, portable and single-copy in shared/governance

🧠Intelligence

6 risks (5 high/critical) · 4 upside opportunities · 5 assumptions · 4 open issues

⚠️ Risk Register

RSK-04RSK-06

RSK-01RSK-02

RSK-05

RSK-03

I1I2I3I4I5

L = likelihood, I = impact (1–5). Tint = severity band: low / medium / high (L×I ≥ 12) / critical (≥ 20).

Full risk register (6)

ID	Risk	Category	L/I	Severity	Mitigation	Owner	Status
`RSK-01`	No demand evidence: zero discovery conversations; the market problem is portfolio thesis, not measured need.	market	4/4	high	Hold the first discovery conversation before any further packaging polish; the pre-committed kill rule (two quarters of outreach, no paid engagement) bounds the exposure.	Zaid	open
`RSK-02`	Consultancy sells founder hours the portfolio says are not spare — bandwidth concentration with NDIS and EMS both ahead of it in priority.	resource	4/4	high	Cap near-term effort at the strategy's ~0.5 h/wk; resolve ACT-004 so the GTM runs once, not twice; prefer the standard as delivery methodology inside EMS if hours stay scarce.	Zaid	open
`RSK-03`	Unsellable as packaged: no service catalog, no pricing — nothing can be bought.	commercial	3/4	high	ACT-001 (3 offers with prices, due 2026-10-31) is the single unblocking action and the first gate criterion.	Zaid	open
`RSK-04`	Duplicated go-to-market: the EMS Suite sells to the same buyer with the same governance assets while ACT-004 is unresolved.	portfolio	4/3	high	Decide ACT-004 once, in one place (shared-GTM review, due 2026-10-31); advisor recommendation is to fold this GTM into EMS.	Zaid	open
`RSK-05`	Credibility gap: v4.0 is 'BUILT, UNVERIFIED' (unratified, CR-012 unraised) and the consultancy itself has no business_plan.json — selling a discipline it doesn't yet practise.	product	3/3	med	OBJ-2 (own business_plan.json, --check passing) and OBJ-4 (ratification) close the gap; both are already gate criteria.	Zaid	open
`RSK-06`	Zombie drift: the record ages as a finished asset without a revenue path or a clean close, consuming portfolio attention.	portfolio	4/3	high	Strategy fix is booked: one conversation this month; then the gate (2026-11-30) or an explicit park with revival triggers — never silent starvation.	Zaid	open

🌱 Upside Opportunities

prime

Standard as delivery methodology inside other opportunities

The advisor's preferred use: embed the standard in EMS delivery and HAD commercialisation instead of (or before) running a standalone shopfront — same asset, no new hours channel.

Upside: high · Effort: low

good

Reference webapp as proof asset

A 16-test, deploy-anywhere implementation is a differentiator competitors don't bring to a first meeting; one command to demo.

Upside: med · Effort: low

later

v4.0 business layer as the wedge

Few SMB-facing offerings mandate NPV/IRR/payback, options analysis and benefits realization at intake — the newest layer is the most commercially distinctive part of the standard.

Upside: med · Effort: med

later

Shared GTM with EMS Suite

One brand, one buyer conversation, governance services + product cross-sell — pending ACT-004; eliminates RSK-04 entirely if adopted.

Upside: med · Effort: med

🧩 Assumptions

ASM-01

SMBs adopting AI will pay for governance, intake and value-tracking discipline.

Validation: First discovery conversation (S5); willingness-to-pay signals before pricing is final.

unvalidated

ASM-02

The standard's ceremony can be tailored down to SMB-appropriate engagements (MICRO/STANDARD/MAJOR classes exist for this).

Validation: Shape the 3 catalog offers explicitly around the class table; test in the discovery conversation.

unvalidated

ASM-03

The founder can fund the packaging hours (~0.5 h/wk) alongside NDIS and EMS priorities.

Validation: ACT-001 delivered by 2026-10-31 — or the park rule fires at the gate.

unvalidated

ASM-04

Engagements are sellable at consulting rates with the standard as the delivery method (the record's proceed_when).

Validation: Price the catalog (ACT-001) and test against the first discovery conversation.

unvalidated

ASM-05

The framework alignments (PRINCE2, PMI PMBOK, TOGAF, OGC Gateway) withstand client scrutiny as stated.

Validation: Before first external use, verify the currency of each cited framework edition (the standard's own GOV-F1.16 discipline).

unvalidated

🔴 Issue Log (live)

ID	Issue	Impact	Raised	Status
`ISS-01`	v4.0 Business Layer is BUILT, UNVERIFIED: Zaid's ratification outstanding and CR-012 not yet raised.	The flagship layer the consultancy would sell is not yet a ratified part of the controlled standard	2026-09-07	open
`ISS-02`	The consultancy fails its own v4.0 intake mandate: no business_plan.json of its own (REQ-BUS-001).	Blocks the Concept→Validation gate ('practise what you sell') and is a live credibility exposure	2026-09-12	open
`ISS-03`	Reference webapp's real-engine round-trip with a live GLM key is not closed (stub round-trip and guard tests verified).	One demo claim remains unproven with a real engine; needs Zaid's key at runtime	2026-09-01	open
`ISS-04`	v4.0 source discrepancy: the ratification checklist says 'the 14 new REQ rows' but the layer defines 15 (REQ-BUS-001..015).	OBJ-4/S3 ratification could sign off the wrong row count; the dossier carries 15 (the requirements list) as the authoritative figure in both places	2026-09-13	open

⚡Execution

Stage KPIs · next gate: Concept → Validation (due 2026-11-30) · 2 open owner actions · full progress log.

📊 Stage KPIs

KPI	Current	Target
Service catalog defined	No	Yes (3 offers + prices)
business_plan.json (self)	No	Yes per v4.0 standard
Paying engagements	0	1 by 2026-12-31

🚪 Next Gate — Concept → Validation

Due: in 61d (2026-11-30)

Service catalog with pricing
business_plan.json per own v4.0 standard (practise what you sell)
First discovery conversation with a prospective SMB client

✅ Next Steps & Actions

ID	Action	Due	Status
`ACT-001`	Write the service catalog (3 offers with prices) + the consultancy's own business_plan.json	2026-10-31	open
`ACT-002`	Resolve ACT-004 dependency: shared go-to-market with Engineering Management Suite or separate	2026-10-31	open

🕘 Progress Log (newest first)

2026-09-18 concept

Dossier review pass (program OBJ-3): v4.0 link label clarified (project-tree copy; controlled copy in shared/governance), OBJ-2 measure wording fixed; dossier status reviewed.

2026-09-15 concept

Flip-through: correctly parked behind ACT-004 (shared go-to-market with EMS, due 31 Oct) per strategy §5. Catalog work must not split attention before that decision.

2026-09-12 concept

Imported into portfolio tracker. Governance corpus relocated to the shared layer (single copy). Still at concept: no service catalog, pricing, or engagements. Cross-opportunity decision ACT-004 (eng-mgmt-suite) will determine whether this shares a go-to-market with the productised toolkit.

🔗 Links

Consultancy page (portal tab) v4.0 Business Layer Addition (unratified; project-tree copy — controlled copy in shared/governance)

‹ HAD Digital (Oncology Home-Hospitalization)▦ All 9 Tax & Household Finance Archive ›