Rebase costs on USD/THB; add timelines and first market data

Currency
- Base currency moves from EUR to USD and THB throughout. Rates at
  5 Aug 2026: 1 USD = 33 THB, 1 EUR = 1.155 USD, 1 GBP = 1.35 USD.
  EUR/THB lands at ~38, so existing THB research needed no change.
- Vendor quotes keep their original currency with a USD/THB equivalent
  alongside, so they stay checkable against the source PDFs.
- Full vision ~4.7-8.9M USD; phased entry ~1.7-2.9M USD.

New documents
- production-timeline.md: order turnaround stage by stage. Launch
  8-14 weeks, mature 5-10, repress 2-3. Quantifies the in-house
  galvanics turnaround claim the repo had asserted without a number,
  and flags artwork as an unmodelled fourth approval gate.
- project-timeline.md: calendar to first paying release, ~Q4 2028.
  Critical path is BOI certificate to press order to build to
  commissioning. Two findings: Newbilt build time is absent from the
  repo yet carries ~40% of the schedule, and the BOI rule may be
  over-serialised since duty exemption attaches at importation rather
  than at contract signature.

First market data (ResurRec, Bangkok)
- Invoice-derived prices, a factory tour, and a confirmed fleet of one
  Newbilt Classic 12" automatic plus one semi-automatic.
- Price ladder recorded at 300/500/1000-3000/3000+ units. Decomposes
  to roughly 34-50k THB fixed per title and 535-780 THB variable per
  unit, which is 4-7x the price this model assumes.
- The incumbent presses 230-350k records/yr but buys every stamper as
  an import. That single constraint plausibly explains their 150-unit
  floor, their flat discount ladder and their large-run lead time, and
  it is what an in-house galvanics line attacks. Logged as an open
  question on whether galvanics should move from phase 5 to phase 1.
- Inferences are marked as inferences; the whole set is one buyer and
  one plant, and the model is deliberately left unrebased until a
  second data point exists.

Corrections
- Gross margin arithmetic did not follow from its own inputs. Restated
  as ~1.95 USD at the midpoint with the 0.75-3.15 spread shown; the
  previous "40 to 55%" was not supported.
- Direct cost low total 1.50 to 1.45 USD; contingency THB high 40M
  to 38M.
- README indexes the construction RFQ, which was missing.

docs/finance/revenue-model.md

@@ -1,70 +1,397 @@
 # Revenue and Profit per Record: Rough Model
 
-A first-pass economic model at mature capacity. Every number here is an
-estimate from industry pricing norms and this repo's own cost research;
-nothing is market-validated yet. The point is the shape of the economics
-and which levers matter, not precision. FX: ~38 THB/EUR. Compiled July
-2026.
+A first-pass economic model at mature capacity. Most numbers here are
+estimates from industry pricing norms and this repo's own cost research.
+**One set of real market prices now exists** — see the next section — and
+it does not agree with the model. The point is the shape of the economics
+and which levers matter, not precision.
+
+**Currency: USD and THB.** FX at 5 August 2026: **1 USD = 33 THB**.
+Pricing benchmarks originally researched in EUR are converted at
+**1 EUR = 1.155 USD**. Compiled July 2026.
+
+## First market data point (August 2026)
+
+Buy-side prices gathered from actual invoices, not industry norms. The
+pressing and stamper figures come from comparing a **ResurRec** (Bangkok)
+full-service invoice against a pressing-only invoice. Mastering is a
+market range from multiple engineers.
+
+| Item | THB | USD | Note |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Audio mastering | 5,000 – 20,000 **per song** | 150 – 605 | Varies by engineer |
+| Father / mother / silvering (stamper set) | ~22,000 **per title** | ~665 | Derived from the full-service vs pressing-only differential |
+| All-in per 12" record | 650 – 950 | 19.70 – 28.80 | Includes mastering, stamper, packaging and pressing |
+
+**These are domestic Thai prices with no freight or import duty in them**,
+which makes them directly comparable to what CNX would charge. They are
+one customer's experience with one plant, so treat them as a strong signal
+rather than a survey. **The 650–950 THB figure is the price at 300 units**;
+the full volume ladder is in point 3.
+
+## What the ResurRec factory tour showed (August 2026)
+
+First-hand observation from a site visit, and it reframes the competitive
+picture more than the invoices do:
+
+- **The plant is essentially an apartment**, not an industrial building.
+  Floor area, floor loading and power are constrained accordingly.
+- **No proper HVAC or air filtration** on the pressing floor — no
+  temperature, humidity or PM control.
+- **Pressing only. They do not plate.** The stamper set behind the
+  22,000 THB differential is bought in and resold, not made in-house.
+- **Two presses, both Newbilt** (confirmed August 2026): a **Classic 12"
+  fully automatic** — 3-column hydraulic, built-in 15 kW extruder,
+  automatic patty and label handling, Siemens PLC, **28 s cycle** — plus
+  one **semi-automatic** 4-column book-mould press. This is a real capital
+  fleet, not a hobby setup; on the EUR 200,500 quoted for CNX's own
+  Single 2.1, the pair is plausibly USD 450–700k of press equipment.
+
+Four things follow, and one of them corrects the read in the previous
+section.
+
+**Nobody in Thailand appears to plate.** If the country's established
+plant buys its stampers in, then every Thai title currently makes an
+overseas round trip for silvering and electroforming. That makes in-house
+galvanics a genuine first rather than a cost saving, and it means the
+three-to-five-week turnaround advantage in
+[production-timeline.md](../production-timeline.md) is measured against a
+competitor who cannot close that gap without building the same line.
+
+**The 22,000 THB is a resale price, not a plating cost.** It embeds
+ResurRec's margin and inbound freight, so the underlying plating cost is
+lower. That does not weaken the business case: 22,000 THB is what a Thai
+buyer pays for a stamper set today, which is exactly the right basis for
+what CNX could charge or avoid paying. But it should not be read as the
+cost of running a galvanics line.
+
+**They out-press CNX's launch phase by two to three times.** The Classic
+12" runs a 28 s cycle — **129 records/hour** from the vendor's own figure,
+not an estimate — against 60–80/hour for the semi-automatic. The pair
+nameplates at **~190–210/hour**. On one shift, 250–300 days, at the 60–70%
+overall effectiveness this repo applies everywhere, that is **~230,000 to
+350,000 records a year**, and roughly double on two shifts. At Newbilt's
+claimed ≥95% uptime and yield it would be higher still.
+
+| | Records/yr |
+|---|---|
+| ResurRec today, one shift | ~230k – 350k |
+| **CNX launch** (1 semi-auto, 1 shift) | **90k – 135k** |
+| CNX Duplex (2 semi-auto, 1–2 shifts) | ~300k – 600k |
+| CNX mature (2 semi + 2 automated, 2 shifts) | 1.0M – 1.5M |
+
+CNX does not overtake them on volume until the Duplex expansion, and does
+not clearly lead until the mature fleet. Nameplate is not sold output —
+their actual utilisation is unknown, and an unconditioned floor will not
+hold top-end effectiveness through the wet season — but the fleet is
+real and should not be discounted.
+
+What remains true is the **quality and capability gap**, and it is where
+the whole differentiation now sits: no plating, no climate control, no
+metrology, no traceability. There is still no *industrial* vinyl plant in
+Thailand — but the gap CNX is closing is capability, not capacity, and it
+will be outgunned on presses for its first two phases.
+
+### The incumbent is press-rich and metal-poor
+
+With the fleet confirmed, the pricing behaviour in point 3 below stops
+looking like three separate quirks and starts looking like one constraint.
+A plant that can press 230,000–350,000 records a year:
+
+- **turns away 150-unit orders** because they cost too much,
+- discounts only **30% for a tenfold** increase in run size,
+- and needs **two to four extra weeks** for anything over 3,000.
+
+None of that is press capacity — 3,000 units is roughly three days of
+pressing on that fleet. Every one of those behaviours is explained by the
+**stamper being a purchased import**: it is the irreducible fixed cost that
+makes small runs uneconomic, the cost that does not fall with volume so
+the discount ladder stays flat, and — at 1,000–2,000 pressings per stamper
+— the reason a 3,000-unit run needs two or three sets and therefore
+another overseas order.
+
+**They have the presses. They cannot feed them.** That single sentence
+explains the entire observed price list, and it is the market position
+CNX's galvanics line is aimed at.
+
+It also reframes the collaboration. If the constraint is metalwork rather
+than machines, a CNX galvanics line could sell stampers **into their
+existing spare press capacity** — revenue against the galvanics capex
+before CNX presses anything itself. At 300 titles a year of their work
+that is ~6.6M THB (~200k USD); if faster stamper supply let them grow into
+their fleet, more. Against a 320–650k USD line that is a one-to-three-year
+payback **from a single customer**.
+
+Which raises a sequencing question the roadmap does not currently ask:
+**should galvanics come first rather than fifth?** It is a fraction of the
+full capex, it addresses the market's actual bottleneck, it earns before
+the press hall exists, and it is the one capability no one in the country
+has. The counter-argument is real — galvanics still needs a building, a
+clean room and zero-discharge water treatment, and it is the hardest skill
+to hire — but the option deserves costing rather than assuming.
+
+**The number that decides it is ResurRec's actual annual output and title
+count**, which is not known. At 300 titles the stamper opportunity is
+strong; at 100 it is marginal. Worth asking directly in the collaboration
+talks.
+
+**No HVAC turns the biggest cost line into the product.**
+[facility-security.md](../facility-security.md) specifies whole-factory
+climate control — 20–26 °C, 35–60% RH, PM filtration sized for
+burning-season PM2.5 — and the utilities budget treats it as overhead.
+Against a competitor pressing in uncontrolled Bangkok air it is a quality
+argument instead:
+
+- Moisture in PVC compound causes bubbles, non-fill and surface defects;
+  humidity also drives cooling rate, and so flatness and warp.
+- Airborne particulate embeds in the record surface. That is the classic
+  source of clicks and pops, and it is the complaint that gets a pressing
+  rejected by a label.
+- Thailand's burning season makes this seasonal as well as chronic — a
+  plant without filtration produces measurably different records in March
+  than in September.
+
+**Newbilt is now vendor-validated in Thailand, and that is worth money.**
+The incumbent runs Newbilt kit, which means the machines demonstrably
+survive Thai humidity and Thai power, and that somebody has already walked
+the import, commissioning and spares path CNX is about to walk. Two things
+to ask on the back of it, both free: ask **Newbilt** for their Thai
+install base and a service-response precedent — the northern-dispatch SLA
+question in [equipment-suppliers.md](../suppliers/equipment-suppliers.md)
+is much easier to answer with an in-country reference — and, if the
+collaboration talks progress, ask **ResurRec** directly what commissioning
+and support actually cost them.
+
+The corollary is a pricing one. CNX cannot win a price war at 200-unit
+runs against an operator with apartment rent and no HVAC load, and should
+not try. Nor is capacity the wedge — they can already press volume. It
+competes on what an unconditioned, non-plating shop cannot offer at any
+run size: export-grade QC and traceability, titles needing plating,
+consistent output through burning season, and the regional labels
+currently shipping to Europe, the US or Japan.
+
+### What the invoices say about the model
+
+**1. The galvanics saving is bigger than modelled.** The model credits
+in-house galvanics with removing 175–460 USD per title of external stamper
+cost. The observed differential is **~665 USD** — 1.4 to 3.8× higher, and
+it is a resold price rather than a plating cost, per the tour notes above.
+On a galvanics line at 320k–650k USD, and assuming in-house marginal cost
+(nickel, silver nitrate, chemistry, labour, QC, water treatment) runs
+25–35% of the external price, the net saving is roughly 430–500 USD per
+title:
+
+| Titles/yr | Annual saving | Payback on 320k | on 650k |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 300 | ~130–150k USD | ~2.1 yr | ~4.3 yr |
+| 600 | ~260–300k USD | ~1.1 yr | ~2.2 yr |
+
+A one-to-four-year payback is a materially better case than the model
+implied, and it is driven by **title count, not record volume** — which
+is an argument for pulling galvanics earlier than its current Phase 5
+slot in [roadmap.md](../roadmap.md).
+
+**2. Per-title services are understated by roughly 3 to 4×.** The model
+bundles mastering, cutting, stampers and test pressings into 19,000–57,000
+THB per title. At observed market rates a ten-track album masters at
+50,000–200,000 THB *before* the 22,000 THB stamper set — so the real
+per-title value is more like **72,000–222,000 THB (2,180–6,730 USD)**.
+
+At 300–600 titles/yr that is **0.65M to 4.0M USD/yr of title services**,
+against the 0.17M–0.69M in the table below. Two things cap it, and both
+are real:
+
+- **Mastering is labour-bound.** An engineer masters perhaps 2–4 songs a
+  day, so 600–1,200 songs or 60–120 albums per engineer per year. The
+  300–600 titles/yr in this model would need **3 to 5 mastering
+  engineers**; [scale.md](../scale.md) currently plans for 1 to 2.
+- CNX would not necessarily capture full boutique retail rates as a plant
+  rather than a studio.
+
+**3. The volume ladder, and what it gives away.** The 650–950 THB price is
+for **300 units**. The published discounts:
+
+| Run | Discount | THB/unit | USD/unit |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 150 (stated minimum) | — | rarely accepted, "cost is way too high" | |
+| **300 (reference)** | — | **650 – 950** | 19.70 – 28.80 |
+| 500 | −5% | 618 – 903 | 18.70 – 27.35 |
+| 1,000 – 3,000 | −15% | 553 – 808 | 16.75 – 24.45 |
+| >3,000 | −30% | 455 – 665 | 13.80 – 20.15 |
+| | | *+2 weeks to 1 month lead time* | |
+
+**The curve is remarkably flat.** A tenfold increase in run size buys only
+30% off. Solving the first three tiers as a fixed-plus-variable structure
+(the fit is good to ~2%) gives:
+
+- **Per-title fixed: ~34,000 – 50,000 THB** (1,030 – 1,515 USD)
+- **Per-unit variable: ~535 – 780 THB** (16.20 – 23.65 USD)
+
+Two readings fall out of that, and both matter.
+
+**The variable price is four to seven times the model's assumption.** This
+model prices a record at 115–150 THB (3.50–4.60 USD) blended. The Thai
+domestic market pays **535–780 THB** for the same per-unit scope, and even
+at the deepest >3,000 discount never drops below ~455 THB. Some of that
+gap is scope — their figure carries a printed jacket where this model
+passes packaging through separately — but nothing like all of it. Either
+the pricing assumption here is far too low for this market, or ResurRec is
+pricing at the import-parity ceiling that a sole domestic supplier can
+hold. Probably both, and a second plant would compress it. **It still says
+there is far more headroom in domestic pricing than this model assumes,
+and that is the most consequential finding in the data.**
+
+**The fixed figure does not reconcile, and that is informative.** At
+34,000–50,000 THB it barely covers the 22,000 THB stamper set plus one to
+three songs of mastering. So the 650–950 THB either does not fully carry
+album mastering, or albums are mastered far below the 5,000–20,000 THB
+per-song headline. Worth resolving — it is the difference between point 2
+above being a 3–4× understatement or a much smaller one.
+
+**The >3,000 lead-time penalty is probably a stamper problem, not a press
+problem.** At nameplate the two presses clear 3,000 units in about two
+days, so a two-to-four-week extension cannot be press time. The likely
+cause is in the numbers already in this repo: a stamper is good for
+**1,000–2,000 pressings**, so a 3,000-unit run needs **two to three
+stamper sets** — and with no plating in-house, every additional set is an
+overseas order. "Blocking out the entire factory" reads like scheduling
+around an imported-metalwork wait.
+
+If that inference is right it is the sharpest competitive fact yet found:
+**the incumbent's lead time degrades with run size precisely because they
+cannot plate**, while a plant with in-house galvanics pulls a fresh
+stamper off an archived mother in a day or two (see the repress path in
+[production-timeline.md](../production-timeline.md)). Their weakness at
+volume is structural and is the exact thing the Phase 5 galvanics line
+fixes.
+
+**And the floor of the market is unserved.** A 150-unit minimum that is
+"rarely accepted because the cost is way too high" means sub-300 runs are
+effectively unavailable in Thailand. That floor exists because per-title
+cost — an imported stamper set plus outsourced mastering — is irreducible
+for them. In-house cutting and plating collapses it, which makes short
+runs viable for CNX in a way they structurally are not for ResurRec.
+
+**What it does to the volume-versus-boutique question.** The model assumes
+1.0–1.5M records/yr across 300–600 titles, an average of 1,700–5,000 units
+per title. The market evidence says the reference order is 300 units and
+that 3,000+ is disruptive enough to need special handling. Those two
+pictures still do not fit together, and the earlier back-calculation of a
+200–400 unit typical run was right. But the resolution is now clearer than
+"pick one": the volume tiers exist and are priced, so larger runs are not
+absent from the market — they are **rationed by a metalwork bottleneck**
+that CNX would not have.
+
+### What is still missing
+
+- Is the 22,000 THB stamper set for a complete 12" (both sides), or per
+  stamper? This drives the two-to-three-sets inference above.
+- Does the >3,000 lead-time extension come from stamper supply, press
+  scheduling, or PVC procurement? Worth asking directly — it decides
+  whether their constraint is one CNX escapes.
+- Does 650–950 THB include jacket printing, or is packaging billed
+  separately?
+- Is the 5,000–20,000 THB/song mastering rate for general audio mastering,
+  or vinyl-specific mastering? Lacquer cutting is a separate service again
+  and is not obviously in either figure.
+- Is there album-rate pricing for mastering, or is it strictly per song?
+  Ten tracks at the 20,000 THB top end would be 200,000 THB, which seems
+  high for an indie release and suggests album rates exist.
+
+One further consequence worth naming: [README](../../README.md) records a
+collaboration with ResurRec as "under discussion", and the tour makes that
+look more like complementarity than rivalry. They press, they do not
+plate, and they cannot scale inside an apartment. A plating and mastering
+relationship — CNX supplying stampers and cut lacquers into their pressing
+capacity — is a plausible shape for it, and it would put revenue against
+the galvanics line from day one rather than waiting on CNX's own title
+count.
 
 ## Pricing assumptions (what a pressing plant charges)
 
-Typical Western pressing-service prices run roughly 2.50 to 5.00+ EUR per
-12" record at volume for standard black, with premiums for color/splatter
-(+0.50 to 1.50), 180 g, and small runs; full-service with printed jacket
-lands around 4 to 8 EUR per unit. Per-title service fees come on top:
-mastering, lacquer cutting, stamper sets, test pressings, setup.
+Typical Western pressing-service prices run roughly **2.90 to 5.80+ USD**
+per 12" record at volume for standard black, with premiums for
+color/splatter (+0.60 to 1.70), 180 g, and small runs; full-service with
+printed jacket lands around **4.60 to 9.20 USD** per unit. Per-title
+service fees come on top: mastering, lacquer cutting, stamper sets, test
+pressings, setup.
 
 Working assumptions for CNX at mature volume, blended across run sizes and
 standard/color mix:
 
-- **Blended pressing price: ~3.0 to 4.0 EUR per record** (pressing,
-  labels, inner sleeve, assembly into customer-supplied or locally-made
-  jacket; deluxe packaging passed through at cost plus margin)
-- **Per-title services: ~500 to 1,500 EUR per title** (mastering, cutting,
-  stampers, test pressings), at roughly 300 to 600 titles/yr at full
-  capacity
+- **Blended pressing price: ~3.50 to 4.60 USD per record**
+  (~115 to 150 THB) — pressing, labels, inner sleeve, assembly into
+  customer-supplied or locally-made jacket; deluxe packaging passed
+  through at cost plus margin
+- **Per-title services: ~580 to 1,730 USD per title** (~19,000 to 57,000
+  THB) for mastering, cutting, stampers, test pressings, at roughly 300
+  to 600 titles/yr at full capacity
 - Dropshipping/fulfillment fees per parcel on top, not modeled here
 
+**These two assumptions are the ones the market data contradicts most
+sharply.** Domestic Thai pricing runs 535–780 THB per unit on the variable
+scope against the 115–150 THB assumed here, and per-title services look
+understated as well. The figures above are deliberately left at the
+conservative Western-benchmark level until a second data point exists:
+re-basing the whole model on one supplier's price list, in a market with
+one supplier, would be worse than leaving it low. Test it at Making Vinyl,
+then re-base.
+
 ## Revenue at full capacity
 
-| Scenario | Records/yr | Pressing revenue | Title services | Total |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Mature, low | 1.0M | ~3.0M EUR | ~0.15M EUR | **~3.2M EUR/yr** |
-| Mature, high | 1.5M | ~5.3M EUR | ~0.6M EUR | **~5.9M EUR/yr** |
+| Scenario | Records/yr | Pressing revenue | Title services | Total USD | Total THB |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Mature, low | 1.0M | ~3.5M | ~0.17M | **~3.7M/yr** | **~122M/yr** |
+| Mature, high | 1.5M | ~6.1M | ~0.69M | **~6.8M/yr** | **~224M/yr** |
 
-(Low: 1.0M x 3.0 EUR + 300 titles x 500 EUR. High: 1.5M x 3.5 EUR + 600
-titles x 1,000 EUR. A pure-volume plant runs at the low per-title end; a
+(Low: 1.0M x 3.50 USD + 300 titles x 580 USD. High: 1.5M x 4.05 USD + 600
+titles x 1,155 USD. A pure-volume plant runs at the low per-title end; a
 boutique-heavy mix pushes the title line up and the volume down.)
 
 ## Direct cost per record (estimates)
 
-| Cost element | EUR/record | Basis |
-|---|---|---|
-| PVC compound | 0.25 to 0.40 | ~150 to 160 g effective virgin per record at 1.5 to 2.5 EUR/kg record-grade; regrind loop covers scrap |
-| Labels | 0.03 to 0.08 | printed pairs, volume |
-| Inner sleeve | 0.08 to 0.15 | poly-lined |
-| Jacket (standard) | 0.35 to 0.80 | local carton partners; pass-through-ish |
-| Shrink wrap | 0.02 to 0.03 | film |
-| Energy | 0.10 to 0.20 | ~1.5 to 2 kWh blended per record at grid/solar mix |
-| Production labor | 0.20 to 0.35 | 15 to 25 staff across shifts at Thai wage levels over 1.0 to 1.5M records |
-| Stamper amortization | 0.03 to 0.06 | in-house stamper over 1,000 to 2,000 pressings |
-| Maintenance, spares, consumables | 0.10 to 0.20 | estimate |
-| Reject allowance | 0.10 to 0.15 | 5 to 10% reject rate carried by good units |
-| **Total direct cost** | **~1.3 to 2.4** | |
+| Cost element | USD/record | THB/record | Basis |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| PVC compound | 0.29 to 0.46 | 9.6 to 15.2 | ~150 to 160 g effective virgin per record at 1.75 to 2.90 USD/kg record-grade; regrind loop covers scrap |
+| Labels | 0.03 to 0.09 | 1.1 to 3.0 | printed pairs, volume |
+| Inner sleeve | 0.09 to 0.17 | 3.0 to 5.7 | poly-lined |
+| Jacket (standard) | 0.40 to 0.92 | 13.3 to 30.4 | local carton partners; pass-through-ish |
+| Shrink wrap | 0.02 to 0.03 | 0.8 to 1.1 | film |
+| Energy | 0.12 to 0.23 | 3.8 to 7.6 | ~1.5 to 2 kWh blended per record at grid/solar mix |
+| Production labor | 0.23 to 0.40 | 7.6 to 13.3 | 15 to 25 staff across shifts at Thai wage levels over 1.0 to 1.5M records |
+| Stamper amortization | 0.03 to 0.07 | 1.1 to 2.3 | in-house stamper over 1,000 to 2,000 pressings |
+| Maintenance, spares, consumables | 0.12 to 0.23 | 3.8 to 7.6 | estimate |
+| Reject allowance | 0.12 to 0.17 | 3.8 to 5.7 | 5 to 10% reject rate carried by good units |
+| **Total direct cost** | **~1.45 to 2.75** | **~48 to 91** | |
 
 ## Margin per record
 
-- Blended price ~3.0 to 4.0 EUR minus direct cost ~1.3 to 2.4 EUR gives a
-  **gross margin of roughly 1.2 to 1.8 EUR per record (~40 to 55%)**
+- Blended price 3.50–4.60 USD minus direct cost 1.45–2.75 USD gives a
+  **gross margin of ~1.95 USD per record at the midpoint (~64 THB, ~48%)**
+- The spread around that is wide and worth stating rather than hiding in
+  a range: the adverse corner — low price meeting high cost — leaves
+  **0.75 USD (21%)**, and the favourable corner **3.15 USD (68%)**.
+  Neither extreme is likely, but it shows that price realisation and cost
+  control each move the margin by more than a third on their own
 - Overheads on top: admin/sales, insurance, facility running costs, and
-  depreciation (~300k to 600k EUR/yr on the 4M to 7.7M full-vision capex
-  over 10 to 15 years), together roughly 0.4 to 0.7 EUR per record at full
-  volume
+  depreciation (~350k to 700k USD/yr on the 4.7M to 8.9M full-vision
+  capex over 10 to 15 years), together roughly 0.45 to 0.80 USD per
+  record at full volume
 
-Rough operating picture at full capacity: **EBITDA ~0.8 to 1.5M EUR/yr;
-operating profit after depreciation ~0.5 to 1.0M EUR/yr**, before tax.
-The BOI CIT exemptions (solar, automation, and any merit measures) shield a
-meaningful part of early-year profits; see [boi.md](../boi.md).
+Rough operating picture at full capacity: **EBITDA ~0.9 to 1.7M USD/yr
+(~30M to 56M THB); operating profit after depreciation ~0.6 to 1.2M
+USD/yr (~20M to 40M THB)**, before tax. The BOI CIT exemptions (solar,
+automation, and any merit measures) shield a meaningful part of early-year
+profits; see [boi.md](../boi.md).
+
+**Both roll-ups predate the margin correction above** and sit at the
+conservative end of what it now implies — a midpoint margin of 1.95 USD
+over 1.0–1.5M records leaves more than this once overheads come off. They
+are deliberately not re-derived here. The inputs they rest on
+(utilisation, overhead per record, the blended price itself) are all
+unvalidated, so re-running the arithmetic would give the output a
+precision the inputs do not have. The whole P&L should be rebuilt when
+the model is re-based after market validation, not before.
 
 Payback on the full-vision capex at these margins: **roughly 5 to 8
 years at mid assumptions** (the adverse corner, high capex meeting low
@@ -82,20 +409,34 @@ proves the market before the big blocks are bought.
 - **Regional position**: an Asia-Pacific full-service plant competes on
   turnaround and freight against EU/US plants for regional labels; pricing
   power there is unproven and is the single biggest assumption in this
-  model
-- **In-house galvanics** removes 150 to 400 EUR per title of external
-  stamper cost and days of turnaround, feeding both margin and the sales
-  story
+  model. The turnaround claim is quantified in
+  [production-timeline.md](../production-timeline.md)
+- **In-house galvanics** removes **~665 USD** per title of external
+  stamper cost — the observed ResurRec differential, up from the 175–460
+  USD previously estimated — plus three to five weeks of turnaround,
+  feeding both margin and the sales story
 - **Energy**: solar plus heat recovery pushes the energy line toward the
   low end and hedges Thai tariff rises
+- **The currency mismatch is a live exposure.** Revenue is quoted to
+  export customers in USD or EUR while roughly two-thirds of the direct
+  cost base (labor, energy, local cartons, maintenance) is incurred in
+  THB. A stronger baht compresses margin directly: at the mid case, a 10%
+  THB appreciation takes roughly 0.10 to 0.15 USD off the gross margin
+  per record without a single operational change. Worth deciding early
+  whether to quote regional customers in THB.
 
 ## Honest caveats
 
-- No market validation yet: no signed customers, no confirmed regional
-  price points; the Making Vinyl trip and early conversations should test
-  the 3.0 to 4.0 EUR blended assumption before it anchors any financing
-  case
+- Still no signed customers and no seller-side validation. The August 2026
+  data point above is buy-side, from one plant and one buyer, and it
+  contradicts the model on per-title services and probably on run size.
+  The Making Vinyl trip and early conversations should test the 3.50 to
+  4.60 USD blended assumption — and the run-size question — before either
+  anchors a financing case
 - Demand risk is real: vinyl demand is cyclical and capacity has been
   added globally; the model assumes the plant can sell what it presses
 - The reject allowance assumes the QC investment holds rejects at or below
   industry norms; early production will run worse before it runs better
+- FX is a snapshot. Every figure here restates research done at ~38
+  THB/EUR and ~33 THB/USD; the ranges are wider than the FX noise, but the
+  totals should be re-based, not just re-converted, if rates move much