Commit Graph
5 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
grabowski 4fec258f15 After Haarlem: Pheenix CEO follow-up, OMS first contact, SST
- Pheenix Alpha (Robert Gunnarsson, 5 Oct; Simona's reply 9 Oct): offers
  a Teams call, reference clients and a factory visit near Stockholm;
  300+ presses (vendor figure); we call once questions are concrete,
  next Europe trip planned for February 2027. CEO contact and Marsta
  address added.
- OMS (Lou Wullms, 7 Oct): first email contact, company data, contacts
  (Lou Wullms technical, Wilma Peeters accounting/logistics); open: reply
  to confirm, then OMS sends material to calculate from.
- SST Frankfurt (Daniel Krieger, 7 Oct): cut the lacquers for POY003,
  005, 006 and 013; on good terms with ResurRec; offered help. New cutting
  service entry in the supplier map and vendor landscape; corrected the
  briefing, which had SST as DMM (its site lists lacquer and dubplates).
- Roadmap items 5, 6 and 14 and the production timeline launch basis
  updated accordingly.
2026-10-09 06:38:52 +02:00
grabowski 4607a4da58 Plan the artist platform: price calculator and fan-funded pressing
New docs/artist-platform.md: upload master and artwork with automatic
audio, artwork and rights checks; an itemised price calculator for every
customer (per-title vs per-copy lines, price-per-copy curve, lead time
from the production-timeline quote table, versioned price list); and
fan-funded campaigns that press and dropship per fan once the goal is
reached, refund otherwise. Covers goal maths, payments (charge into a
ring-fenced account, CNX as seller of record, legal opinion first; the
Qrates failure as the design rule), repress pre-orders, architecture on
the cnx-factory stack with the public side on a fleet machine, PDPA,
phasing (calculator public early as a run-size probe, campaigns only
after first releases ship), cost and open decisions.

Backlinks from README, process flow, production timeline, revenue model,
digital factory and roadmap items 1 and 20; total investment added-scope
table gains the platform line.
2026-10-02 17:37:32 +02:00
grabowski 1bbef055c4 Remove em dashes where the replacement is unambiguous
The project has a standing style rule against em dashes that was missed
when these docs were written. This removes the 42 occurrences where the
substitution is mechanical and cannot change meaning:

- table cells using an em dash as a placeholder, now a hyphen
- em dashes immediately followed by a conjunction or subordinator
  (but, and, or, so, though, while, which, where, because, since),
  where a comma is simply correct

115 remain. Those join independent clauses, where a comma would create a
splice and a colon often reads wrong, so each needs a judgement call
rather than a pattern. A blanket regex over them was attempted and
reverted: it produced double colons and broken sentences.
2026-08-06 15:31:09 +07:00
grabowski 4deaa2c57c 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.
2026-08-06 12:35:37 +07:00
grabowski 20c8d283d5 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.
2026-08-06 12:22:40 +07:00