Worked-scenario table (explicitly illustrative, not validated) beneath the
parametric break-even formula: revenue by maker band (2 → 1,000) at midpoint
assumptions, broken into Pro fees / Starter % / referral spread. Reinforces the
parametric conclusions — revenue mix flips toward Pro + spread with maturity,
and break-even (~150–300 makers) sits well past the dozen-maker §9 demand gate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Break the partner-compensation model out of the "Business model" subsection into
a dedicated §7 "Partner / consultant network: onboarding the high-touch tail"
subsection. Add the money-flow clarification: the referral-income split is the
only leg the network settles (principal-on-both-sides, out of flow); any upfront
cash, setup fee, retainer, milestone, or other agreement is a direct off-platform
deal between maker and partner — the network never takes custody (custody is the
line). Tooling may record an off-network term (coordination) but never moves it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Specify the §7 "Partner / consultant network" compensation mechanism: a maker
may pay a partner a negotiated, front-loaded/tapering share of its *earned*
referral income (curator credits) for storefront stand-up + network onboarding,
with negotiation tooling. Rides existing invariants — principal-on-both-sides
(out of flow), a fourth consumer of the Phase-2 cashable rail, stateful
cumulative-tier settlement (Appendix C.5 pattern), and the curation-integrity
guardrail (no say in whom the maker vouches for). Reflect in §12 unit economics
as maker-borne activation cost / referral-activation driver, not a platform line.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ben.stull