LLL · communication board

Verification and Constraints

● LAUNCHING · DEVBOX

DanubiSoft: fulfil the latest meeting promises with one focused preparation pack.

Live owner: Sol High · devbox handoff Run: danubisoft-partner-readiness-20260927 Updated: 27 September 2026

Goal and finish line

End goal: Prepare one evidence-backed decision pack that lets Matt and DanubiSoft discuss the first European partner campaign and compare workable commercial models.

Done means: Three promised outputs, the partner snapshot, preliminary emails and calculator, have two compact supporting documents. Five linked deliverables answer who to approach, what the partner gets, what both sides can earn, what to say, and which deal to negotiate. Reusable assets are reconciled. Unknown client-owned inputs have owners and exact questions. The campaign remains unlaunched.

0 / 15criteria verified

5deliverables

4open decisions

Rules that stay fixed

Execution authorized: Sol High orchestrator on devbox, with two independent Sol High calculator builders.
Reuse existing work. No client messages, campaign activation or binding commercial commitments.
Publish useful review deliverables at bare URLs. Synthetic calculation fixtures remain labelled. Never publish credentials or unrelated source material.

Proof standard: Every pass needs the named evidence. GUI proof includes an actual screenshot, independent Luna description and comparison. No criteria passed yet. Missing required source data keeps its criterion unverified. All 15 must pass for implementation completion.

What the two meetings change

Confirmed as meeting statements

16 September: prepare preliminary emails, a company/count report and a calculator. Do not apply a company-size floor to foreign partners. Agree the agency deal after reviewing the economics.

10 September: structure before scale

Three partner roles were discussed. Licence receipts were the proposed agency commission base, with support separated. The website launch was targeted for 15 October, pending current confirmation.

Recommendation, not an agreement

Prepare the five outputs below as one pack. Start with existing evidence and one useful entry offer. Do not build five separate lead magnets or restart mass sourcing.

Still open

Current list size and contact quality, verified ERP readiness, client-approved offer and reference permissions, and exact commercial terms.

Source coverage: full 10 and 16 September Wispr recordings read. Live Wispr and Notion checks found no newer identified call. Fireflies was rate-limited, so a newer Fireflies-only call cannot be ruled out. Raw transcripts are not published here. D3 and D5 are compact supporting documents. The domestic appendix only reads existing evidence.

End goal system

Green: confirmed evidence or review rule · pink: recommendation · dashed: open decision. Outputs remain proposed until built.

flowchart TD
        S["Two meeting records
Promises and constraints"]:::confirmed --> L["Audited partner pool
Actual counts and examples"]:::assumption
        S --> P["Offer and proof
ERP evidence and responsibilities"]:::assumption
        P --> C["Economics calculator
Income, effort and timing"]:::assumption
        L --> E["Outreach review pack
Sourced messages and reply paths"]:::assumption
        P --> E
        C --> T["Deal decision sheet
Clear choices and unresolved terms"]:::assumption
        E --> R{"Client inputs confirmed?
Claims, offer and economics"}:::open
        T --> R
        R -->|Yes| A["One usable decision pack
Ready for next meeting"]:::assumption
        R -->|No| Q["Owner-assigned questions
Drafts stay visibly pending"]:::open
        classDef confirmed fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32,color:#173B25
        classDef assumption fill:#FCE4EC,stroke:#C2185B,color:#5B1430
        classDef open fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#94A3B8,color:#475569,stroke-dasharray:5 5

Route to the end state

flowchart LR
        A["Meeting promises
Recorded source evidence"]:::confirmed --> D["Review this contract
Adjust scope and assumptions"]:::open
        B["Existing drafts
Reuse after reconciliation"]:::confirmed --> D
        C["Unconfirmed inputs
Data, claims and terms"]:::open --> D
        D --> G{"Execution authorized?
27 September user instruction"}:::open
        G -->|Not yet| H["Resolve required input
Keep incomplete criteria unverified"]:::confirmed
        G -->|Yes| X["One Sol High cloud orchestrator
Build within reviewed scope"]:::assumption
        X --> V["Verify each deliverable
Scripts, source checks and screenshots"]:::assumption
        V --> F["Review the decision pack
Campaign still unlaunched"]:::assumption
        classDef confirmed fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32,color:#173B25
        classDef assumption fill:#FCE4EC,stroke:#C2185B,color:#5B1430
        classDef open fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#94A3B8,color:#475569,stroke-dasharray:5 5

Deliverable flow

Two inputs · five outputs · one review

10 and 16 September meetings

Why: preserve actual promises.

Existing copy, data and partner brief

Why: build on usable assets.

Audit the existing partner pool

Show what we can actually contact, with evidence and a small representative sample.

Build two partner economics calculators

Make expected income, workload and cash timing visible before selecting commercial terms.

Define the offer and proof

Explain why a partner should talk, what they receive, and what DanubiSoft must confirm.

Prepare the outreach review pack

Fulfil the promised emails using real partner context and a useful first step.

Prepare the deal decision sheet

Give the next meeting a clear economic choice and exact unresolved questions.

Next-meeting decision pack

Discuss the campaign and negotiating position.

Parent ↔ child messages

Cloud dispatch in progress

PARENT · SCOPE RECOMMENDATION27 September

User approved cloud execution and requested two calculator variants by two Sol High agents. Preserve all verification criteria and open commercial terms. Use workable alternatives when an approach fails.

Evidence and reusable assetsPublic references only

Existing September email draft · Older partner-market brief

Existing drafts are not fresh proof. Earlier size, pricing and delivery assumptions must yield to the later meetings. Detailed source notes and the goal contract stay local, outside the public review bundle. Future executor read set: deliverables.md, main-prompts.md and session-id.txt.

Deliberately deferredKeep the first run useful

Mass scraping, five separate lead magnets, a replacement website, autonomous outreach and campaign activation. Reconcile the domestic lead work in a small read-only appendix rather than restarting it.

Work and proof

One card per deliverable

D1 · Audit the existing partner pool

Show what we can actually contact, with evidence and a small representative sample.

PENDING 0 / 3

Criteria, constraints and evidence

Private partner-readiness.csv and domestic-status.md with named owners, plus a public aggregate snapshot with no owner names, contacts or private source links.

Observable tests

When the inventory script is run against the recovered foreign-partner exports, then dated raw, unique, in-scope, contact-found, email-verified, excluded and unknown counts appear in partner-snapshot.md with input hashes and explicit denominators. Missing exports appear as unavailable, never as zero, and D1.1 stays unverified until the population is recovered and counted. Document deduplication keys, scope rules and each metric denominator. Contact-found is not email-verified or permission to send. Verification counts require dated method/status evidence, not merely an address. When up to 20 representative recovered firms are inspected across available regions and ERP types, then company, country, website, manufacturing-client evidence, ERP evidence, contact provenance, verification date and exclusion state appear in private partner-readiness.csv, with a source for every factual field. Use min(20, recovered in-scope population) firms, with a stated sample-selection rule. A zero-row sample or unrecovered population does not pass D1.2. When the domestic list exclusions and latest campaign readbacks are compared with the September meeting claims, then domestic-status.md distinguishes reported overlaps, client-marked exclusions, actual campaign state and unresolved matches. The appendix names existing owners and does not change campaigns.

Constraints

No new paid sourcing or enrichment until the existing exports have been accounted for. No partner headcount floor.
Keep the foreign-partner population separate from Hungarian manufacturing leads. Never publish personal contacts or raw lists.
Historical unanswered foreign outreach is not an automatic commercial exclusion. Active client/relationship exclusions and opt-outs remain separate.

Required proof: Input manifest and hashes, reproducible count output, row evidence, read-only provider snapshots. No GUI claim here.
Current evidence: pending. No deliverable criteria have been verified.

D2 · Build two partner economics calculators

Make expected income, workload and cash timing visible before selecting commercial terms.

PENDING 0 / 3

Criteria, constraints and evidence

Two working calculator variants, independently built by two Sol High agents, each with partner and ClientsFlow views, documented formulas and the same test fixtures. Compare both without discarding either.

Observable tests

When synthetic inputs of 100000 currency units customer licence value per sale, 50% DanubiSoft share, 10% ClientsFlow share and two paid sales are entered, then the calculator shows 100000 DanubiSoft licence receipts and 10000 ClientsFlow commission. Separately entered service/support revenue does not increase that commission. When the partner model is switched among referral, prime contractor and branded reseller using editable licence split, delivery hours, hourly cost, fixed acquisition/setup costs, sales count and payment timing, then the calculator matches the three role fixtures below for revenue, costs, contribution and cash timing without double-counting reseller share. When zero sales, zero eligible revenue, a blank required hourly cost, and a ClientsFlow percentage of 110% are tested, then the calculator shows zero commission, no break-even where applicable, an explicit missing-input state and a validation error respectively. Break-even uses stated fixed costs and positive per-sale contribution. Nonpositive contribution yields no finite break-even, not a divide-by-zero result. Every assumption remains visible and editable.

Constraints

Public version uses synthetic defaults. Confidential historical economics remain in the private supporting model.
Never promise ROI or treat a mature reseller’s sales as a new partner forecast. Separate receipts, revenue, contribution and profit.
Define each fixture currency and period explicitly, using one currency per scenario. Eligible commission = collected DanubiSoft licence receipts × ClientsFlow percentage. Customer price × DanubiSoft share is the simple fully-paid fixture only. Model unpaid/partial receipts separately and do not count an invoice as cash. Support and implementation excluded from the default ClientsFlow commission base. Unknown terms stay blank or explicitly illustrative.

Required proof: Deterministic formula fixtures plus actual screenshots for all stated UI cases, blind gpt-6-luna high descriptions, and criterion comparisons.
Current evidence: pending. No deliverable criteria have been verified.

Synthetic calculator test oracles

Use synthetic currency units, one sale, licence customer cash 1000 on day 30, ClientsFlow 10% of collected DanubiSoft licence receipts paid day 60, no support/service revenue. DanubiSoft delivery cost is 100 and partner delivery cost is 50, both paid day 0. Fixed costs are zero unless specified.
- Referral: DanubiSoft collects 1000, pays referral fee 200 to partner on day 30 and ClientsFlow 100 on day 60. DanubiSoft contribution 600, partner contribution 150, ClientsFlow revenue 100. The referral fee is a separate cost and does not silently change the licence-receipt denominator.
- Prime contractor: partner collects 1000 and remits 600 to DanubiSoft on day 30. ClientsFlow receives 60 on day 60. Partner retained licence revenue 400, contribution 350. DanubiSoft contribution 440. Gross customer cash and retained partner revenue have separate labels.
- Branded reseller: same licence cash split, partner delivery cost 150 and DanubiSoft delivery cost 0. Partner contribution 250, DanubiSoft contribution 540, ClientsFlow revenue 60.
- Split sensitivity: two fully paid sales at 100000 per sale, changing DanubiSoft retained share from 50% to 40%, changes eligible licence receipts from 100000 to 80000 and ClientsFlow 10% commission from 10000 to 8000. Reseller retention is not deducted again.
- Break-even: fixed acquisition cost 500 and per-sale contribution 100 gives 5 sales. Zero/nonpositive contribution gives no finite break-even. Zero sales or zero eligible receipts gives zero commission. Blank required hourly cost prevents contribution output, and 110% commission is invalid.
These are test oracles, not proposed prices or verified role economics. Formula tests verify every oracle independently before GUI screenshots.

Screenshot evidence placeholder

Actual changed interface after each named test · independent Luna high description (expectations withheld) · comparison and pass/fail. All three are pending.

D3 · Define the offer and proof

Explain why a partner should talk, what they receive, and what DanubiSoft must confirm.

PENDING 0 / 3

Criteria, constraints and evidence

Three-role comparison, ERP proof matrix, one tangible consultation offer and a bounded optional trial brief.

Observable tests

When every ERP/product/reference statement in the supplied documents is compared with its evidence, then proof-matrix.md labels it ready, prior-project experience, planned, unconfirmed or permission-pending, with version, source, owner and approved wording fields. Large SAP is not labelled ready from the September call alone. When referral, prime-contractor and branded-reseller profiles are applied to the offer comparison, then named sales, billing, delivery, support and customer-ownership responsibilities appear for each role, with unresolved responsibilities visibly open. When a fictional partner completes the proposed short consultation example, then a one-page portfolio-opportunity map identifies relevant customer situations, missing data and an optional next step. The trial appendix states proposed duration, data needs, onboarding effort, owner and exit, all pending DanubiSoft confirmation where unsupported.

Constraints

Reuse existing DanubiSoft landing/case materials. Do not replace the website owner’s work or promise connector readiness.
Build one entry offer, not five separate lead magnets. Trial access and unlimited implementation/support cannot be invented.
No customer/partner logo, named reference or confidential case metric is publicly reused without existing permission evidence.

Required proof: Source-to-claim comparison and fictional completed output. Preview any HTML version with screenshot, blind description and comparison.
Current evidence: pending. No deliverable criteria have been verified.

Screenshot evidence placeholder

Actual changed interface after each named test · independent Luna high description (expectations withheld) · comparison and pass/fail. All three are pending.

D4 · Prepare the outreach review pack

Fulfil the promised emails using real partner context and a useful first step.

PENDING 0 / 3

Criteria, constraints and evidence

Revised existing three-opening draft, follow-ups, reply branches and six evidence-backed personalized examples.

Observable tests

When the existing September 16 email draft is reconciled with D1 and D3, then outreach-pack.md contains three openings, two no-reply follow-ups and interested, referred, objection and stop branches, with one approved-or-pending CTA consistently tied to the actual offer. When six available audited partner records are used to render personalized drafts, then the private pack shows the correct company and sourced ERP/manufacturing context for each. Unknown ERP produces a generic relevant variant, never a guessed connector claim. If fewer than six usable audited records exist, show the available drafts and explicit shortage, but keep D4.2 unverified. Synthetic examples cannot satisfy this source-bound criterion. When the outreach pack is reviewed against the source matrix and launch checklist, then each factual claim links to evidence or is visibly pending, and campaign language, sender, handoff owner, response timing, landing readiness and exclusions have an owner and status. October 15 remains a reported target pending current confirmation.

Constraints

Draft-only work. Do not send, schedule, activate, or modify an existing campaign.
Reuse the existing copy and preserve later explicit user-approved wording if recovered. Never imply an unbuilt tool is already available.
English campaign draft and Hungarian review notes are proposed defaults. Country-specific translations require a selected first market.

Required proof: Source/placeholder lint, six rendering comparisons, complete branch checklist. Public preview uses synthetic recipients only.
Current evidence: pending. No deliverable criteria have been verified.

D5 · Prepare the deal decision sheet

Give the next meeting a clear economic choice and exact unresolved questions.

PENDING 0 / 3

Criteria, constraints and evidence

A non-binding term sheet, comparison of fee structures, and a short owner-assigned decision list.

Observable tests

When the September 10 and 16 commercial statements are reconciled, then deal-decision.md separates discussed licence-receipt baseline, open one-off fee, long-term duration and unsupported prior assistant suggestions. Support exclusion and the absence of a signed agreement are explicit. When illustrative commission percentages and one-off-fee options are run through D2, then a private comparison shows eligible licence receipts, commission, agency cost assumptions, cash delay and zero-sales downside. A recommended negotiating position is conditional on missing economics, not presented as an accepted price. When the term sheet is walked through for a new partner, old unanswered outreach, active existing relationship, later customer sale and termination, then the sheet states the proposed attribution event, registration rule, commission base, duration, reporting, payment trigger and survival treatment, with every unresolved term marked for decision.

Constraints

Do not treat earlier assistant fee, percentage, duration or maintenance suggestions as an agreement.
No automatic 24-month expiry or profit-share base. Model the longer-term relationship discussed before recommending terms.
Keep agency compensation separate from the foreign partner’s discount/commission. No legal commitments or client messages.

Required proof: Transcript anchors, calculator readback and five worked attribution cases. No binding signature or external send.
Current evidence: pending. No deliverable criteria have been verified.

Open decisions and blockers

Only unresolved items

Keep the named input register private. Matt identifies unnamed DanubiSoft owners. The executor prepares questions, sends no client messages, and keeps unavailable inputs UNKNOWN.

DanubiSoft commercial owner, name to confirm

What licence receipts are eligible, what partner split, one-off reward, ongoing duration and payment trigger are proposed?

Required evidence: Dated written non-binding term choices and labelled price/cost inputs, not earlier assistant advice

Until resolved: Synthetic scenarios, no accepted-price claim

DanubiSoft product owner, name to confirm

Which ERP/version and capability works today, what trial/import/delivery capacity exists, and which references may be named?

Required evidence: Dated owner confirmation with versioned product/demo evidence for readiness and explicit reference-permission record

Until resolved: Claims planned/unconfirmed or permission-pending

Matt with DanubiSoft

Which first market/language, sender, response owner and launch date should be considered? Is the landing currently ready?

Required evidence: Recorded choices plus current landing/provider readback

Until resolved: English draft and Hungarian notes proposed, no launch

Executor for recovery, Matt for unrecoverable source location

Where are the existing foreign exports and marked domestic exclusions?

Required evidence: Recovered dated exports with hashes plus read-only current campaign/exclusion readbacks

Until resolved: Exact missing-source question, affected criteria unverified

Recovery state

Only inspect on stall or completion

0consecutive stalls

Not startedrecovery state

Reviewresume point

Last stall / completion note: Cloud dispatch is in progress. Creation and input verification will be recorded before marking RUNNING. None of the deliverables is complete yet.

Parent action: The user authorized Sol High on devbox. Executor owns implementation and recovery. Parent receives one verified completion or irreducible-blocker report.