docs/maker-platform-strategy.md

@@ -510,6 +510,18 @@ Two things fall out of the *shape*, no values required:
 - **This is a fixed-cost-coverage problem, not a margin problem.** Each maker contributes a small but positive m − v (mostly the subscription; the referral spread is thin and partly self-cancelling via credits). The question is therefore not "is a maker profitable" (yes, modestly) but "**how many modest contributions fund the reliability floor F**." That directly *reframes the §9 dozen-maker gate*: a dozen makers validates **demand**; break-even is a larger N governed by how lean F is kept (the §7 LLM-deflated-cost bet is precisely the bet that F is small) and how much per-maker margin the tier mix yields.
 - **N\* falls as makers *grow* and *refer*, not merely as they're *added*.** A network stuck on cold-start Starter percentages at low GMV barely moves m; break-even improves as makers graduate to flat Pro (margin firms up) and as referral activity lights (spread revenue). So the two levers that move N\* most are **F** (keep the reliability core lean — the §7 bet) and the **Starter→Pro graduation + referral-activation mix** (raise m). Adding low-GMV, non-referring makers moves break-even the least.
 
+**An illustrative pass — the *shape*, not validated numbers.** To see what the formula implies, fix the variables at plausible midpoints — average active-maker GMV `G` = $30k/yr, Starter take 3%, Pro $39/mo, referral spread 4% — and let the Pro-tier mix and referred share `ρ` mature as the network lights:
+
+| Makers `N` | on Pro | referred `ρ` | Pro fees | Starter % | Referral spread | **≈ revenue/yr** |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 2 (pilot) | 0% | 0% | — | $1.8k | — | **$1.8k** |
+| 12 (§9 gate) | 10% | 5% | $0.6k | $9.2k | $0.7k | **$10.5k** |
+| 50 | 25% | 10% | $5.9k | $30k | $6.0k | **$42k** |
+| 200 (density) | 40% | 20% | $37k | $86k | $48k | **$172k** |
+| 1,000 | 50% | 25% | $234k | $337k | $300k | **$872k** |
+
+Two readings fall out, both reinforcing the parametric conclusions above. The revenue **mix flips with maturity** — ~90% thin Starter percentage at the §9 gate, but the Pro flat fee and the referral spread carry it by density and beyond (the *graduate-and-refer*, not merely *add*, point). And against a lean reliability floor `F` ≈ $75–150k/yr (the funded core ops + ledger + verification audit + hosting), break-even lands somewhere around **~150–300 makers** under these midpoints — **well past the dozen-maker §9 *demand* gate.** The dozen validates demand; sustainability is a later, larger N, and that gap is exactly the thing this section exists to name.
+
 **The honest caveat (memo voice).** These are the variables, not values: n = 2 cannot calibrate per-maker GMV, the referred-GMV share, churn, or graduation rate. Naming the model is the point — and the §9 gate should start **instrumenting** the inputs (per-maker GMV, referred share) so that break-even stops being unknown by the time the dozen-maker gate is cleared. The same order-history asset that powers the metrics below makes every one of these variables measurable per maker (§7) — the model and the instruments are the same build.
 
 ### Network-health & liquidity metrics — instrumenting the §9 gates