We do not yet have a market. The next 90 days exist to earn one — or to kill the idea cheaply. Every week must produce something we can put in front of a real accounting-firm partner. Talk as if it is built; learn whether they will pay.
Strategic Intent of this Phase
- Prove demand, not build product. The engine is already a working thin prototype. The risk is not engineering — it is whether firms will buy and white-label it.
- Create sellable artefacts fast. A comprehensive-looking roadmap, one real sample diagnostic, and a 1-page commercial leave-behind — enough to test price and intent in week 2.
- Learn the real objections. Exclusivity, territory, price, who decides, how they currently 'do' advisory. Capture every one.
- Reach a GO / pivot / kill decision by day 90 with a shortlist of pilot-ready firms.
Key Assumptions We Are Testing
| # | Assumption | How we test it | What disproves it |
|---|
| 1 | 3-9 partner firms will white-label rather than build it themselves | Breakfast meetings; ask directly | They say they'd build it in-house for less |
| 2 | $10-15k entry + $1.5-2k/yr is a no-brainer price | State price; watch for hesitation / counter-offer | Sticker shock or 'too cheap to trust' reaction |
| 3 | Their SME clients will buy the 7-plan advisory | Ask them about their client base uptake | They believe clients won't pay / already served |
| 4 | We can reach decision-makers quickly | Count meetings booked vs attempted | Cannot get in front of owners in 30 days |
| 5 | Execution support is the differentiator, not reports | Probe what they'd pay for | They only value the diagnostic output |
| 6 | A vertical pack (construction first) is attractive | Test interest in industry packs | No interest; horizontal only |
30 / 60 / 90 Day Plan
Workstream (owner)
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | W8 | W9 | W10 | W11 | W12 | W13 |
|---|
Validation assets
Roadmap + sample diagnostic + 7-plan deck
1-page leave-behind (price/licence model)
Nick Clark-style report as methodology sample
Conversations
2 Pretoria accounting-firm breakfasts
Xero / SMB-affiliate angle meetings
3-5 warm referral partner intros
Broader reach: associations, 8-10 meetings
Learning
Log objections, price sensitivity, exclusivity asks
Synthesise patterns; refine pitch
Test vertical pack priority (construction first?)
Assets v2
Tighten demo to top objections
Pilot design
Shape first paid pilot (1 firm, 1 client)
Commercials
Finalise $10-15k + $1.5-2k/yr licence terms
Decision gate
GATE 1: enough signal to continue?
GATE 2: pipeline of serious prospects?
GATE 3: GO / pivot / kill
Validation assetsConversationsLearningAssets v2Pilot designCommercialsDecision gate
Red bars are decision gates. Bars are placed by start week and duration across a 13-week (90-day) horizon. Hover any bar for owner + detail.
What Each Horizon Must Deliver
Days 1-30 — Get something sellable in front of them
- Vicus: Finalise the roadmap artefact + one real sample diagnostic (BuildRight) + 7-plan deck.
- Vicus: Produce the 1-page commercial leave-behind: price, licence, what they get, what we keep.
- Pieter: Adapt the Nick Clark report as a "here is the kind of output" sample.
- Pieter: Book 2 Pretoria accounting-firm breakfasts (Action Coach connections).
- Vic: Open the Xero / SMB-affiliate angle.
- Ronnie: Line up 3-5 warm referral intros.
- All: Start the objection log from day one.
Days 31-60 — Broaden and learn
- Run 8-10 total meetings; widen beyond warm network (associations).
- Synthesise patterns: price sensitivity, exclusivity/territory asks, decision process.
- Test vertical-pack priority — is construction the right first pack?
- Tighten the demo against the top 3 objections.
- GATE 1 (end W6): Is there enough signal to continue?
Days 61-90 — Decide and design the pilot
- Vic: Finalise commercial terms ($10-15k + $1.5-2k/yr; exclusivity options).
- Pieter: Shape the first paid pilot: one firm, one real client, fixed scope.
- Shortlist pilot-ready firms; agree a next step with at least one.
- GATE 2 (W10): A real pipeline of serious prospects?
- GATE 3 (W13): GO / pivot / kill.
Success Metrics & Learning Agenda
| Metric | Target by day 90 | What it tells us |
|---|
| Qualified meetings run | 10+ | Can we reach decision-makers at all? |
| Firms that ask for a proposal / pilot | 3+ | Real intent vs polite interest |
| Stated acceptable price band | Confirmed $10-15k + licence | Is the no-brainer real? |
| Recurring objections logged | Categorised (>=20) | Where to sharpen the offer |
| Exclusivity / territory requests | Captured | Packaging & pricing leverage |
| Pilot commitments | >=1 signed LOI | GO signal |
Learning agenda (what we must discover, not assume):
- Who actually decides — the advisory partner or the managing partner?
- What do they currently call 'business advisory' and why is it only financial?
- Will their SME clients pay for the 7-plan + execution, or only a diagnostic?
- Is exclusivity/territory a deal-maker we can monetise?
- Which vertical do they serve that we should package first?
- What is their tolerance for 'speak as if built' before we truly build?
Decision Gates
| Gate | When | CONTINUE if… | PIVOT if… | KILL if… |
|---|
| Gate 1 | End W6 | Meetings booked; some curiosity; objections are about detail, not relevance | Interest exists but wrong buyer/segment (e.g. need <3 or >10 partners) | Nobody will meet; 'we'd build it ourselves' is universal |
| Gate 2 | End W10 | 3+ firms want a proposal; price band holds | Interest high but price too low to be viable — reprice | No serious prospects after broad outreach |
| Gate 3 | End W13 | >=1 pilot LOI; clear vertical + commercial terms | Viable but needs different packaging (e.g. pure licence vs done-with-us) | Cannot close a single pilot after 90 days of real effort |
Risks & Watch-outs
- Polite interest, no intent. Accounting firms are courteous. Separate 'love it' from 'will sign'. Kill criteria exist for this.
- Wrong buyer. We target 3-9 partners; below is too busy, above too slow. Do not drift.
- Over-building pre-validation. Resist the urge to perfect the engine before we have a buyer. Thin but sellable wins.
- Price too low = low trust. If everyone says yes instantly, test a higher band; cheap can read as worthless.
- Single-threaded dependency. If only Pieter's network produces meetings, we have a channel risk. Diversify by Gate 2.
- Hallucinated validation. Apex must report what prospects actually said, not what we hoped they said.
Immediate Next Actions — This Week
| Owner | Action | By |
|---|
| Vicus | Finalise roadmap + sample diagnostic; post to Apex group | Fri immersion |
| Vicus | Draft 1-page commercial leave-behind (price/licence/what they get) | This week |
| Pieter | Adapt Nick Clark report as methodology sample; share | This week |
| Pieter | Book 2 Pretoria accounting-firm breakfasts | This week |
| Vic | Open Xero / SMB-affiliate conversations | This week |
| Ronnie | List 3-5 warm referral partners; request intros | This week |
| All | Start the shared objection + learning log | Day 1 |
Companion artefact: the client-facing diagnostic_report.html and business_plan.html are the samples we put in front of prospects. This document is the instrument we run internally.