Correct errors found by review; hedge unmarked inferences

A four-agent review audited arithmetic, cross-document consistency,
epistemic honesty and style. It found substantially more than the
manual pass in the previous commit. Errors that changed conclusions,
not decimals:

Arithmetic
- production-timeline: the headline lead times did not reconcile with
  the stage table on the same page. Launch is 22-49 days (was 21-39),
  mature 11.5-22 (was 14-20), repress 6.5-11.5. Including gates,
  launch is 6-17 weeks, not 8-14.
- Consequence: at 17 weeks the launch configuration is at parity with
  EU/US plants, not ahead of them. The page now compares quote to
  quote rather than a stage sum to a quoted lead time, and says so.
- The galvanics turnaround saving is 1.5-5 weeks, not 3-5.
- scale.md Duplex capacity 300-600k/yr did not reproduce from its own
  stated basis; corrected to 175-540k. production-timeline disagreed
  with scale.md on the same fleet; both now agree.
- "300 units is under an hour of pressing" was out by an order of
  magnitude on the semi-auto line: 5-8 hours.
- project-timeline carried two totals for the same quantity. Now
  27-33 months throughout, with the Gantt's two ordering breaks fixed.
- scale.md: 300 kWp covers 28-45% of consumption, not 20-35%; roof PV
  stated as both 150-200 and 247 kWp for the same roof; parking canopy
  dimensions and PV disagreed with the RFQ.
- RFQ: fire tank stated 200 m3 where both its geometry (254 m3) and
  its own mass (250 t) say 250. Drainage now gives total sealed area
  66%, not the 46% paving figure, since that is what attenuation needs.
- Galvanics payback used only the top of the saving range: 1-5 years,
  not 1-4.

Inference marked as inference
- The 22,000 THB stamper figure is an invoice RESIDUAL. It carries
  lacquer cutting, test pressings, setup and margin, so it is an upper
  bound on the stamper component, not a measurement. Everything derived
  from it now says so, and a line-itemised invoice is the top question.
- The saving was also benchmarked against the wrong supplier: CNX buys
  from Stamper Discs, not a Thai reseller. Stated as 175-665 USD until
  that quote exists.
- The stamper-bottleneck hypothesis now names its alternatives. Jacket
  print runs would produce the same symptom and would constrain CNX
  equally, which would remove the competitive read entirely.
- Competitor capacity relabelled as nameplate times an assumed OEE,
  with the assumed shift pattern stated; all rows on one 300-day basis.
- The fixed/variable decomposition keeps the shape and drops the point
  estimates: the solve point inside the flat 1000-3000 tier is
  arbitrary and moves the fixed component by nearly half.
- "Nobody in Thailand plates" reduced to "we have found no evidence",
  with a desk check named as the action.
- Cut the USD 450-700k valuation of a competitor's presses entirely.
  It extrapolated a semi-auto quote onto a different machine, ignored
  the used market, and supported no decision.
- The collaboration payback divided capex by revenue where the same
  page uses contribution elsewhere: 5-10 years, not 1-3.

Missing caveats added
- No financing is committed or modelled anywhere in this repo;
  project-timeline previously asserted money was not a constraint.
- Leasing cannot pull the launch forward on its own, since the press
  chain governs and construction has float against it.
- The whole competitive analysis is one buyer, one plant, one
  afternoon, and the primary evidence is not archived in the repo.
- ResurRec is a competitor and may decline to buy from a new entrant.

docs/production-timeline.md

@@ -21,23 +21,39 @@ divide by 5 for weeks, and note that Thai public holidays run to
 
 | Configuration | Plant-controlled | Including customer gates |
 |---|---|---|
-| **Launch** (bridge stampers, no in-house cutting or galvanics) | ~21–39 days | **~8 to 14 weeks** |
-| **Mature** (full chain in-house) | ~14–20 days | **~5 to 10 weeks** |
-| **Repress** from an archived mother, no changes | ~7–11 days | **~2 to 3 weeks** |
+| **Launch** (bridge stampers, no in-house cutting or galvanics) | 22–49 days | **~6 to 17 weeks** |
+| **Mature** (full chain in-house) | 11.5–22 days | **~4 to 11.5 weeks** |
+| **Repress** from an archived mother, no changes | 6.5–11.5 days | **~1.5 to 2.5 weeks** |
 
-Reported EU/US plant lead times currently run roughly **10 to 16 weeks**
-for a standard black LP, down from the 6-to-9-month peak of 2021–22. An
-Asian label using a European plant adds freight on top of that in both
-directions. So the mature configuration is a genuine regional advantage
-and the launch configuration is merely competitive — which matters,
-because the launch configuration is what the first two years actually
-sell.
+These are straight sums of the stage table below, plus 9–35 days of
+customer gate time for the first two rows. They are wide because the
+stages are wide, and they are not a quotable lead time — see "What to
+promise a customer" at the end, which adds queue and buffer on top.
 
-**Bringing cutting and galvanics in-house takes roughly 3 to 5 weeks out
-of the quoted lead time.** That is the number behind the sales story,
-and it is the commercial case for the Phase 5 galvanics line stated in
-time rather than in the ~665 USD per title of stamper cost that
-[revenue-model.md](finance/revenue-model.md) already counts.
+Reported EU/US plant lead times run roughly **10 to 16 weeks** for a
+standard black LP, down from the 6-to-9-month peak of 2021–22. That
+figure is an industry impression gathered in conversation, not a
+surveyed one, and it should be tested at Making Vinyl alongside the
+price. Two cautions on the comparison:
+
+- **It is not like-for-like.** The EU/US figure is a *quoted* lead time
+  carrying queue and buffer; the CNX figures above are unbuffered stage
+  sums. The honest comparison is against the quote table at the end of
+  this page — 7–9 weeks mature, 10–14 launch.
+- **On that basis the launch configuration is at parity, not ahead.**
+  Its 10–14 week quote sits inside the EU/US 10–16 week band, and its
+  unbuffered worst case of 17 weeks is beyond it. The regional advantage
+  comes from freight and time zone at launch, and only becomes a
+  manufacturing advantage once cutting and plating come in-house. That
+  matters, because launch is what the first two years actually sell.
+
+**Bringing cutting and galvanics in-house takes roughly 1.5 to 5 weeks
+out of the lead time** — replacing a 13–27 day outsourced metal block
+plus freight with 4–7 days of in-house cutting, plating and stamper
+prep. The spread is wide because the outsourced block is the part
+nobody has measured. That is the commercial case for the galvanics line
+stated in time rather than in the stamper cost that
+[revenue-model.md](finance/revenue-model.md) counts separately.
 
 ## Two tracks run in parallel
 
@@ -123,7 +139,7 @@ overall effectiveness already applied there.
 | Fleet | Good records/day | 300 units | 500 | 1,000 | 2,000 |
 |---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Launch: 1 semi-auto, 1 shift | ~300–450 | <1 day | 1–2 | 2–3 | 5–7 |
-| Duplex: 2 semi-auto, 2 shifts | ~1,000–1,500 | <1 | <1 | 1 | 1–2 |
+| Duplex: 2 semi-auto, 2 shifts | ~1,150–1,790 | <1 | <1 | 1 | 1–2 |
 | Mature: 2 semi + 2 auto, 2 shifts | ~3,300–5,000 | <1 | <1 | <1 | <1 |
 
 Read these as **press-days, not calendar days**. At mature scale no
@@ -138,9 +154,13 @@ decision.** A plant running at 90% quotes 16 weeks with the same
 equipment that quotes 6 weeks at 50%. Any turnaround promise made to
 the market is implicitly a promise to hold spare capacity.
 
-Small runs invert the arithmetic. At 300 units the run itself is under
-an hour of pressing and the entire timeline is setup, approvals and
-assembly — which is exactly the boutique/color work the semi-automatic
+Small runs invert the arithmetic — though not as sharply as it first
+looks. At 300 units on the semi-automatic line the run is **5 to 8
+hours**, most of a shift, once the 60–70% effectiveness above is
+applied; it is roughly an hour on the full mature fleet. What dominates
+a small order is not the pressing but the setup, the approvals and the
+assembly, all of which cost the same at 300 units as at 3,000 — which
+is exactly the boutique/color work the semi-automatic
 line exists to serve, per
 [pressing-line.md](equipment/pressing-line.md). Small runs are not
 faster to deliver; they are only cheaper to press.