Engineering Management Suite (Product) concept product

Productise the existing engineering-management toolkit for small firms (10-100 staff): tailored install + AI drafts from their past projects + capability program. Low-cash, high-time bet; discovery interviews now gate everything.

Why we hold it: You already own a working toolkit exercised on real governed projects. Package it, add client-corpus AI drafting, and sell outcome (hours saved, capability gained) to small engineering firms that enterprise vendors ignore. Cash cost is near zero; the real investment is ~100-140 founder hours gated by willingness-to-pay evidence.

⏱ 18d in stage (since 2026-09-12)🔄 last update 2026-09-18

Near-zero-cash bet on an owned toolkit: ≈100–140 founder hours to first revenue, gated by 13 interviews and ≥3 pay signals — gate 2026-11-12.

Reviewed

Problem

Small engineering firms (10–100 staff) lose senior-engineer nights to hand-drafted plans and proposals; enterprise tooling and boutique consultants are both priced out of their band.

Purpose

Validate pain (≥40%) and willingness-to-pay (≥3 signals) across 13 interviews by 2026-11-12 and convert one paid pilot — never free — or park with the asset intact.

🧭 Unvalidated — discovery-gated, near-zero cashStage conceptHours 4Budget $500Next gate 2026-11-12Open actions 4

idea›concept›validation›build›market›revenue

Unvalidated — discovery-gated, near-zero cashDecision point: Concept → Validationin 43d (2026-11-12)

Near-zero-cash bet on an owned toolkit: ≈100–140 founder hours to first revenue, gated by 13 interviews and ≥3 pay signals — gate 2026-11-12.

✅ Proceed when

Interviews validate pain and pricing — recruit one paid pilot (discount OK, never free)

⏸ Park when

12 interviews, <3 pay signals — asset keeps, timing doesn't

⛔ Kill when

Pain validates but pricing never does across two rounds → collapse into pure consulting on the same assets

💡 Advisor: 2026-09-12: Highest synergy with the AI Consultancy record (same buyer, same governance assets) — ACT-004 will decide whether they share a go-to-market. Do the IP audit before showing anything externally. Authoritative registers: projects/Engineering Management Suite/03_Registers/.

concept

Stage

18d in stage

$500

Budget

Advisor assessment §5 (2026-09-12)

Hours invested

founder time

Open actions

owner-owed

High/critical risks

of 6 total

Unvalidated assumptions

of 6

Open issues

live

🗺️ Engagement Flow — Stages, Gate & Exits

DoneCurrentPlannedGatePark (dashed)Kill (dashed)

⚠️ What could sink it — top risks

RSK-01Small firms cannot or will not pay enough for the value — management tooling perceived as nice-to-have.high 16

RSK-02Tailoring effort does not scale — every client needs bespoke work, capping margin.high 12

RSK-04Founder bandwidth split across NDIS, HAD Digital, Mario and this product.high 12

✅ What to do next

ACT-001IP audit + clean-asset inventory of the toolkitoverdue 4d (2026-09-26)

ACT-002Build the 15-firm candidate customer listoverdue 4d (2026-09-26)

ACT-003Run first 5 discovery interviews2026-10-12

Gate criteria — Concept → Validation

IP-clean asset inventory done (ACT-001)
12–13 discovery interviews logged (5 by day 30, 13 by day 60)
>= 3 credible willingness-to-pay signals
>= 40% pain-validation rate

🔍 Dig deeper

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

📜Charter

A real hypothesised gap in the 10–100-staff band — but with zero interview evidence to date, both the pain and the price are unvalidated. · Turn an already-exercised internal toolkit into a revenue-generating productised offering for small engineering firms — earning each tranche of founder hours through gate evidence, never building before validation.

🗣 Problem Statement

Owner-managed engineering consultancies (10–100 staff, Australia-first) have no fit-for-purpose option between generic AI writing tools and enterprise governance platforms: seniors draft plans, standards and proposals by hand after hours, processes differ project-to-project, and capability walks out with every departing lead. The hypothesised fix — a tailored engineering-management operating system with AI drafting grounded in the firm's own past projects — is believed, not evidenced: 0 of 13 interviews are logged. The market risk is not competition; it is willingness to pay in the SME band, which is exactly what the concept stage must measure.

Pain points (severity)

Senior engineers draft plans/standards/proposals manually — hours lost after hours (hypothesised; top-3 rank check Q6)

4/5

Processes inconsistent project-to-project; capability lost when a senior leaves

4/5

Enterprise PPM/governance platforms priced and sized beyond the 10–100-staff band

3/5

Boutique consultants deliver quality but leave nothing repeatable behind

3/5

Generic AI tools commoditise writing, not managing — no governance spine

3/5

Evidence & sources

Advisor assessment §2: hypothesised pain (senior hours on drafting, inconsistent processes, no capability development, enterprise tools out of reach); target and anti-customer defined
Pricing anchor: one proposal week saved per month ≈ $4k–$8k of chargeable time for a 30-person firm (OFFERING_HYPOTHESIS.md)
Interview log: 0/13 interviews, 0 pain-validations, 0 pay signals, 0 warm leads (02_Work/INTERVIEW_LOG.md, 2026-09-12)
Positioning gap per assessment §4: engineering-specific governance content + AI tailoring + fixed-price packaging — nobody bundles all three in the SME band

🎯 Purpose & Objectives

Turn an already-exercised internal toolkit into a revenue-generating productised offering for small engineering firms — earning each tranche of founder hours through gate evidence, never building before validation.

Objectives

OBJ-1

Complete the IP audit + clean-asset inventory of the toolkit

Measure: 100% of demo surface IP-clean (ACT-001, due 2026-09-26)

planned

OBJ-2

Build the candidate customer list

Measure: 15 named firms with a named contact each (ACT-002, due 2026-09-26)

planned

OBJ-3

Run scripted discovery interviews

Measure: 5 by day 30, 13 by day 60, each logged within 24 h (ACT-003)

planned

OBJ-4

Collect willingness-to-pay evidence

Measure: ≥3 credible named-price pay signals; ≥40% pain-validation rate

planned

OBJ-5

Pass the Concept→Validation gate and sign one paid pilot

Measure: Gate due 2026-11-12; pilot at ≥50% of list — discount OK, never free

planned

📐 Scope

Productise an owned toolkit for 10–100-staff engineering firms: IP-clean packaging, scripted discovery across 15 candidate firms, willingness-to-pay validation, and one paid pilot. No SaaS build, no custom client software, no non-engineering domains in v1.

✅ In scope

IP audit + clean-asset inventory of the toolkit (ACT-001)
Offering one-pager + demo script from clean assets only
15-firm candidate list with named contacts (ACT-002)
13 scripted 30-minute discovery interviews, scored and logged (ACT-003)
Pay-signal capture: name, price point, condition stated
Go-to-market relationship decision vs AI Consultancy (ACT-004)
Pilot scope definition (≤80 founder-hours) and recruitment

⛔ Out of scope

Multi-tenant SaaS platform build (only after ≥2 paid pilots prove demand)
Custom software development for clients
Domains outside engineering / engineering-adjacent delivery firms
Firms under ~10 staff and enterprise-scale firms (anti-customers)
Any modification of the toolkit workspace (read-only asset store)

Constraints

Toolkit workspace (C:\AI Projects\Engineering Management) is never modified from this projectClient-confidential material from past engagements must be stripped or rewritten before external usePortfolio bandwidth cap of 2–3 active records — interviews sequenced behind Mario's gateCash envelope $0–500 to first revenue

💰Value & Money

Sell the outcome, not software: a tailored engineering-management operating system, AI drafts in the firm's own voice from its own past projects, and a team capability program — at fixed SME-reachable prices enterprise vendors and boutique consultants can't or won't match.

💎 Value Proposition

Value drivers

Tier 1 — Foundation install

$8k–$15k fixed

Toolkit deployed + tailored, management-system baseline pack, capability assessment; must be deliverable in ≤80 founder-hours at the low end.

Tier 2 — Managed operating system

$1k–$2.5k / month

Ongoing tailoring, AI drafts from the client corpus, quarterly audits — the recurring core.

Client value anchor

$4k–$8k / month

One proposal week saved per month ≈ chargeable time for a 30-person firm — the anchor that makes Tier 2 pay for itself.

Founder hours to first revenue

≈100–140 h

Packaging 40–60 h, discovery 15 h, pilot delivery 60–80 h — each tranche earned by the previous gate.

Time to first revenue

60–120 days

If a pilot converts at the assessed cadence.

Revenue model: Services-first hybrid (DEC-001, illustrative score 4.2 vs consulting 3.4 / SaaS 2.6): fixed-fee foundation install + monthly managed service + per-cohort capability programs. Productise what repeats; no platform build before ≥2 paid pilots.

⚖️ Cost–Benefit Analysis

≈135 founder-hours (midpoint of the assessed 100–140 h band) and ≤$500 cash buy a first paid pilot at ~$4k (50% of the Tier-1 low-end list) and the evidence to price everything after. The bet is time-for-validation, not cash-for-build.

PaybackCash payback at the first pilot: a ~$4k discounted fee against ≤$500 cash cost. Founder-time payback to be quantified at pilot close against realised pricing.

Costs vs benefits (scaled)

Cash to first revenue (hosting, demo environment, one-pager) cash concept → first revenue

500

Packaging hours (IP audit, one-pager, demo) time concept (40–60 h band)

Discovery hours (interviews + logging) time discovery

Pilot delivery hours time pilot (60–80 h band)

First pilot at 50% of Tier-1 list (list low end $8k) first pilot (per the discount rule)

4000

Tier-2 managed service after pilot conversion monthly — low end of the $1k–$2.5k hypothesis

1000

Client-side value anchor (30-person firm, one proposal week/month) client benefit per month — not our revenue

4000

Method & assumptions

All pricing is hypothesis to validate in interviews (Q8), not quotes. Cash figure is the top of the assessed $0–500 band; time figures are midpoints of the assessed ranges (sum 135 h, within the ≈100–140 h band).

🎯Strategy

Productise-what-repeats: sell outcomes on an already-owned toolkit through a services-first hybrid (fixed-fee install, monthly managed service, capability cohorts), with AI tailoring on the client's own corpus as the wedge. Discovery interviews are the only thing that earns the next tranche of founder hours; the park rule (<3 pay signals in 12 interviews) is pre-committed in writing.

🧭 High-Level Strategy

📍 Positioning

The 10–100-staff engineering band nobody serves: engineering-specific governance content + client-corpus AI tailoring + fixed-price packaging — enterprise vendors are too big, generic AI has no governance spine, boutique consultants leave nothing behind.

🏰 Moat / defensibility

Three-part and thin at entry: (1) governance depth of an exercised toolkit, (2) drafts grounded in the client's own project corpus, (3) fixed-price packaging. Not raw generation — that commoditises (RSK-05). Deepens per engagement as the template library and corpus pipeline compound.

Strategic options

Services-first hybrid monetisation (DEC-001) adopted

Revenue and learning now, productise later — illustrative score 4.2 vs consulting 3.4 / SaaS 2.6; flips only if buyers demand self-serve with no service component.

Pure consulting on the same assets watching

Fastest cash, nothing repeatable; already the designated fallback if pricing never validates across two rounds.

Multi-tenant SaaS platform build rejected

Scalable but builds software before validation; only after ≥2 paid pilots prove demand.

Shared GTM with AI Consultancy, separate offerings (DEC-002) watching

One sales motion, saved bandwidth — merge decision deferred until 5 interviews of evidence (ACT-004).

🚦 Decision Rules (pre-committed)

✅ Proceed when

Interviews validate pain and pricing — recruit one paid pilot (discount OK, never free)

⏸ Park when

12 interviews, <3 pay signals — asset keeps, timing doesn't

⛔ Kill when

Pain validates but pricing never does across two rounds → collapse into pure consulting on the same assets

💡 Advisor note

2026-09-12: Highest synergy with the AI Consultancy record (same buyer, same governance assets) — ACT-004 will decide whether they share a go-to-market. Do the IP audit before showing anything externally. Authoritative registers: projects/Engineering Management Suite/03_Registers/.

🗺️Plan & Actualisation8

8 actualisation steps · 0 done · 1 active · next: Complete the IP audit + clean-asset inventory of the toolkit (ACT-001)

🧭 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

Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026Dec 2026Jan 2027Feb 2027

Concept setup (assessment, hypothesis, kit)

2026-09

IP audit & packaging

2026-09 → 2026-10

Discovery (13 interviews)

2026-10 → 2026-11

Gate & pilot recruitment (Concept→Validation gate)

2026-11 → 2026-12

Pilot delivery & case study (first paid pilot)

2026-12 → 2027-02

🪜 Steps to Actualisation

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

Complete the IP audit + clean-asset inventory of the toolkit (ACT-001) active

Phase: IP audit & packagingOwner: Zaid

Own-IP components only; strip or rewrite anything client-confidential
Blocks every external artefact: one-pager, demo environment, pricing

Build the 15-firm candidate list (ACT-002) planned

Phase: IP audit & packagingOwner: Zaid

Named firm + named contact per row
Warmest first: past employers, former colleagues, supplier networks (Kais, Marinus Link, Tasman Ring)

Package the offering one-pager + demo script from clean assets planned

Phase: IP audit & packagingOwner: ZaidDepends on: S1

Demo surface = IP-clean components only
Anchor pricing on senior-engineer hours saved, not tooling

Run the 13 scripted interviews — 5 by day 30 (ACT-003) planned

Phase: DiscoveryOwner: ZaidDepends on: S2

Score each within 24 h in INTERVIEW_LOG.md
Sequenced after Mario's gate clears (portfolio priority order)

Gate arithmetic: ≥40% pain-validation, ≥3 pay signals planned

Phase: DiscoveryOwner: ZaidDepends on: S4

12–13 interviews is the denominator
Below threshold → park per the pre-committed rule; the asset keeps

Decide GTM relationship with AI Consultancy (ACT-004, DEC-002) planned

Phase: DiscoveryOwner: ZaidDepends on: S4

Advisor lean: shared go-to-market, separate offerings — pending interview evidence
One portfolio-level decision, made once

Recruit one paid pilot at ≥50% of list (never free) planned

Phase: Gate & pilot recruitmentOwner: ZaidDepends on: S5

Discount buys case-study rights + measured baseline data
Pilot scope deliverable in ≤80 founder-hours

Deliver the pilot; instrument baselines; capture the case study planned

Phase: Pilot delivery & case studyOwner: ZaidDepends on: S7

Measure drafting hours before/after and cycle time
Build the template library + AI draft pipeline into this first engagement (RSK-02)

🔁 Development Process

Stage-gated, evidence-first: each tranche of founder hours is earned by the previous gate. Discovery is scripted and scored (interview guide + log); the first pilot is instrumented (drafting hours before/after, cycle time) with the template library + AI draft pipeline built into it, not after; whatever repeats gets productised.

Concept setup›IP audit & packaging›Discovery›Gate & pilot recruitment›Pilot delivery & case study

Concept setup

Advisor assessment, three-tier offering hypothesis, interview kit, registers.

ADVISOR_ASSESSMENT.md
OFFERING_HYPOTHESIS.md v0.1
interview guide + log + candidate template
ACT/RSK/DEC registers

IP audit & packaging

Clean-asset inventory; one-pager and demo script built from clean assets only.

IP-clean inventory
offering one-pager
demo script

Discovery

13 scripted 30-minute interviews; score pain, quantified pain, pay signals and warm leads within 24 h each.

interview log
pay-signal list
gate arithmetic

Gate & pilot recruitment

Concept→Validation gate (due 2026-11-12); pitch a ≤80 h pilot to the 2 warmest interviewees.

gate decision
signed paid pilot at ≥50% of list

Pilot delivery & case study

Deliver the Tier-1 scope; instrument baselines; capture the first case study.

delivered pilot
baseline metrics (drafting hours, cycle time)
case study

🧰Resources

Solo founder with AI-advisor review. The core asset already exists and is read-only; the discovery kit is written; the demo environment is still to be built inside the cash envelope.

💵 Budget

Total budget: $500 · Source: Advisor assessment §5 (2026-09-12)

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

Concept → first revenue (cash envelope)

— / $500

Spent to date: $0 cash, 4 founder hours (assessment, hypothesis, interview guide, registers). Hour tranches: packaging 40–60 h → discovery 15 h → pilot delivery 60–80 h, each contingent on the previous gate.

🧾 Investment Ledger

Cash committed ($)

total committed

Cash spent ($)

to date

Hours invested

founder time

Capital at risk: Primarily founder time competing with NDIS/Mario/HAD hours. Cash ~$0-500 to first revenue.

👥 People & Tools

People

Name	Role	Commitment	h/week
Zaid Al Dabbag	Founder — productiser, interviewer, pilot deliverer	3–4 h/wk in the current 4-week plan; ~6–10 h/wk once interviews run (discovery-phase estimate)	4
AI advisor (ZCode)	Advisor / portfolio review	Fortnightly flip-through	1

Tools

Tool	Purpose	Cost
Engineering Management toolkit (read-only)	The asset being commercialised — 8 known components incl. Leadership builder, Engineering standards, Capella Guru, PM process, SBS generator, any2md, DTP publications, N8N	owned — sunk in past engagements
Discovery kit (guide, log, candidate list)	Scripted interviews, scoring, gate arithmetic	none — written
Demo environment + offering one-pager (to build)	The external surface for interviews and pilot pitch	within the $0–500 envelope

🤝 Stakeholders

Keep informed · high interest / low influence

AI advisor (ZCode) champion

Manage closely · high / high

Zaid Al Dabbag champion

Monitor · low / low

Candidate network (past employers, colleagues, supplier networks) neutralAI Consultancy for SMB (sibling opportunity) neutral

Keep satisfied · low interest / high influence

Target buyers — MDs / delivery managers, 10–100-staff firms neutral

Full stakeholder register (5)

Name	Role	Interest	Influence	Needs / notes
Zaid Al Dabbag	Owner / founder	high	high	Hours released only on gate evidence; IP safety before any external contact
Target buyers — MDs / delivery managers, 10–100-staff firms	Prospective customers (hypothesised)	med	high	Outcome-priced offering; 30-minute interviews that respect their time
Candidate network (past employers, colleagues, supplier networks)	Warmest interview source — Kais, Marinus Link, Tasman Ring networks named in sourcing ideas	med	med	15 named firms + contacts by 2026-09-26 (ACT-002)
AI Consultancy for SMB (sibling opportunity)	Potential shared go-to-market	med	med	ACT-004 decision by 2026-10-31 — made once, at portfolio level
AI advisor (ZCode)	Advisor	high	low	Interview data in the log, not instinct; honest gate arithmetic

🧠Intelligence

6 risks (3 high/critical) · 4 upside opportunities · 6 assumptions · 2 open issues

⚠️ Risk Register

RSK-02RSK-04

RSK-01

RSK-05RSK-06

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`	Small firms cannot or will not pay enough for the value — management tooling perceived as nice-to-have.	market	4/4	high	Lead with revenue-linked outcomes (proposal win rate, senior hours saved); tiered entry pricing; validate willingness-to-pay before building further.	Zaid	open
`RSK-02`	Tailoring effort does not scale — every client needs bespoke work, capping margin.	operational	4/3	high	Build the template library + AI draft-from-past-projects pipeline into the first pilot, not after; productise what repeats after every engagement.	Zaid	open
`RSK-03`	IP contamination from past paid engagements leaks into the product.	legal	2/5	med	ACT-001 audit before any external demo; strip or rewrite client-specific material; fresh demo copies only.	Zaid	open
`RSK-04`	Founder bandwidth split across NDIS, HAD Digital, Mario and this product.	portfolio	4/3	high	Stage-gated time-boxing; portfolio review cadence; park lower-priority bets explicitly rather than starving all.	Zaid	open
`RSK-05`	Generic AI document tools commoditise the offering as raw generation gets cheap.	market	3/3	med	Differentiate on engineering governance depth + client-corpus tailoring, not on generation alone.	Zaid	open
`RSK-06`	Interviews start only after Mario's gate clears, compressing 13 interviews against the 2026-11-12 gate.	portfolio	3/3	med	Sequenced deliberately (PORTFOLIO_STRATEGY §3): IP audit + candidate list first while waiting; gate date already allows a 60-day discovery window.	Zaid	open

🌱 Upside Opportunities

good

Client-corpus AI drafting as the wedge

Drafts grounded in the firm's own past projects — their voice, their terminology, their capabilities. Generic AI can't (no corpus); enterprise vendors won't (no SME pricing).

Upside: high · Effort: med

good

Revenue on owned assets with no build phase

The toolkit already exists and has run on real governed projects — services-first packaging (DEC-001 hybrid, 4.2) sells outcome at near-zero cash cost.

Upside: med · Effort: low

good

Shared go-to-market with AI Consultancy

Same buyer shape, same governance assets — one sales motion for two offerings if ACT-004 confirms; advisor lean is shared GTM, separate offerings.

Upside: med · Effort: low

later

Case-study flywheel from a discounted first pilot

50% of list buys case-study rights and measured baseline data — the evidence that prices every subsequent engagement at full list.

Upside: med · Effort: med

🧩 Assumptions

ASM-01

Small engineering firms rank this pain top-3 when asked unprompted.

Validation: Interview Q6 rank check — ≥40% pain-validation across 12–13 interviews.

unvalidated

ASM-02

Tier pricing ($8–15k install; $1–2.5k/month) is plausible in the SME band.

Validation: Q8 willingness-to-pay answers with stated conditions — ≥3 named-price signals.

unvalidated

ASM-03

The toolkit contains enough own-IP material for a full demo surface after stripping client-confidential content.

Validation: ACT-001 IP audit against the read-only workspace.

unvalidated

ASM-04

Client-corpus tailoring stays defensible as generic AI improves.

Validation: Interview reaction to the past-project-leverage question (Q7); revisit at each gate.

unvalidated

ASM-05

Tier 1 is deliverable in ≤80 founder-hours at the low end.

Validation: Instrument the first pilot: actual delivery hours vs target; pivot trigger if >3× and not falling.

unvalidated

ASM-06

Founder commitment runs at 3–4 h/wk in the current 4-week plan and ~6–10 h/wk once interviews run — the higher band applies only during the discovery phase.

Validation: Track actual weekly hours in the record's progress log; confirm the discovery band when interviews start (RSK-06 sequencing).

unvalidated

🔴 Issue Log (live)

ID	Issue	Impact	Raised	Status	Resolution
`ISS-01`	Candidate customer list is empty (0 of 15 rows) with ACT-002 due 2026-09-26.	No list means no interviews — the concept-stage KPI cannot start	2026-09-12	open
`ISS-02`	No IP-clean asset inventory yet (ACT-001 open).	Nothing may be shown externally — one-pager, demo environment and pricing are all blocked behind the audit	2026-09-12	open

⚡Execution

Stage KPIs · next gate: Concept → Validation (due 2026-11-12) · 4 open owner actions · full progress log.

📊 Stage KPIs

KPI	Current	Target
Discovery interviews	0 / 13	5 by day 30, 13 by day 60
Pain-validation rate	—	>= 40%
Willingness-to-pay signals	0 / 3	>= 3 named-price signals
IP-clean packaged assets	0%	100% of demo surface

🚪 Next Gate — Concept → Validation

Due: in 43d (2026-11-12)

IP-clean asset inventory done (ACT-001)
12–13 discovery interviews logged (5 by day 30, 13 by day 60)
>= 3 credible willingness-to-pay signals
>= 40% pain-validation rate

✅ Next Steps & Actions

ID	Action	Due	Status
`ACT-001`	IP audit + clean-asset inventory of the toolkit	overdue 4d (2026-09-26)	open
`ACT-002`	Build the 15-firm candidate customer list	overdue 4d (2026-09-26)	open
`ACT-003`	Run first 5 discovery interviews	2026-10-12	open
`ACT-004`	Decide relationship to AI Consultancy offering (merge GTM or not)	2026-10-31	open

🕘 Progress Log (newest first)

2026-09-18 concept

Dossier review pass (program OBJ-3): gate interview criterion aligned to the 13-interview plan (was '8+'), exec headline trimmed, RSK IDs renumbered to 2-digit; dossier status reviewed.

2026-09-15 concept

Flip-through: on strategy. IP audit (ACT-001) + 15-firm candidate list (ACT-002) due 26 Sep; interviews correctly gated behind Mario's gate — do not start early.

2026-09-12 concept

Opportunity opened. Advisor assessment + offering hypothesis (3 tiers) written; discovery interview guide, candidate-customer template and ACT/RSK/DEC registers seeded. Toolkit workspace mapped read-only (04_Inputs/TOOLKIT_POINTER.md).

🔗 Links

Advisor assessment Offering hypothesis Interview guide

‹ Mario Software (2D/3D Modelling Tools)▦ All 9 HAD Digital (Oncology Home-Hospitalization) ›