caa38dcd0b43051b509ec2bbfa7efffc76171629
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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. |
||
|
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. |