Verification and Constraints
● READY FOR REVIEWFusion PPC restart: review the sales-kit brief, campaign modules and client-panel demonstration before launching the executor.
Goal and finish line
End goal: Help Matt win back Márti’s 280,000 Ft/month PPC management by presenting a clear method from qualified enquiry to sale.
Done means: One branded Hungarian sales kit with selectable campaign modules, 200k/350k media scenarios, honest ROI modelling, representative assets, a working sample-data portal and content calendar, sample reports and unsent WhatsApp messages.
Rules that stay fixed
- Keep the 280,000 Ft monthly fee. Media budgets are separate.
- Produce representative sales materials and a functional sample-data demo. Scope production work explicitly.
- Use public bare review URLs, synthetic data and unsent messages. No live campaign activation.
Scope and decisions
User decisions versus proposed implementation| State | What the executor will follow |
|---|---|
| CONFIRMED | Management fee 280,000 Ft/month. Show 200,000 and 350,000 Ft media options, approximately 2,000 Ft/day campaign modules, price qualification and a better enquiry-to-sale workflow. |
| CONFIRMED | Agency provides edited organic images and copy directions. Márti publishes manually. Representative organic post/story examples connect to the product website. The calendar has week/month views, saved posts and images, drag scheduling and manual reactions, impressions and URL clicks. |
| PROPOSED SCOPE | A working synthetic-data portal demonstration now, plus a production rollout specification. The demo is browser-local, with a tested sample reset. A full connected client system and its commercial scope follow the restart discussion. The 30/60/90 roadmap and broader owner split are proposed operating choices, not agreed contract terms. |
| MODEL INPUTS | Order value, margin, qualification and close rates are estimates until verified. Model low/base/high and zero-sale scenarios, break-even sales and the fee. Show which observations would change the forecast. Provide Matt a private side-by-side calculation using his provisional table inputs and a public comparison using safe illustrative values. |
| FACTS TO RECOVER | Exact SKUs and prices, stock and delivery cutoffs, current targeting controls and signed scope. The August proposal sources and current panel patterns have been recovered. Use labelled placeholders if evidence is absent. No extra decision from Matt is required to prepare those parts. |
How the result fits together
Exactly two diagramsNode meaning: green = confirmed requirement · pink = proposed method · dashed = open decision. Green describes accepted scope, not completed execution.
End goal system
flowchart LR A["Select campaign modules
200k or 350k media budget"]:::confirmed --> B["Qualify and invite
Price, product fit, showroom"]:::assumption B --> C["Manage each enquiry
Pipeline, proposal, next action"]:::confirmed C --> D["Learn from sales
Quality, cost, wins and losses"]:::assumption D --> E["Choose next spend
Keep, change or stop a test"]:::open E --> A 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
The portal and campaign examples demonstrate this proposed operating method. No real lead generation or sales results are claimed.
Route to the end state
flowchart LR A["Matt’s decisions
Fee, modules and calendar"]:::confirmed --> C["Review this brief
Current preparation stage"]:::confirmed B["Recovered references
August proposals and panel patterns"]:::confirmed --> C C --> L{"Later explicit Launch?
User decision"}:::open L -->|Yes| D["Build and verify
One Sol Medium executor"]:::assumption L -->|Change requested| C D --> V{"All proof present?
Check every criterion"}:::open V -->|No| D V -->|Yes| E["Deliver the sales kit
Public demo and unsent messages"]:::confirmed 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
No executor is queued. Comments can change the brief. A later Launch message starts execution; missing evidence requires a fix and retest.
Diagrams could not render. The scope and all criteria remain readable below.
Campaign module menu
Alternatives to prioritise, not six simultaneous launchesArtifact inventory
Inputs and future outputs · execution starts only after LaunchThe cards list the inputs and planned outputs. They are not a sequence or completed work; the Route to the end state diagram above shows the Launch boundary.
User decisions
Current task annotations 1–8
Why: Fee, budgets, modules and workflow are settled.
Verified references
Fusion and Analit reference pages
Why: Reuse the right brand and product evidence.
Presentation + modules
Sales kit / presentation
Why: Make the service and campaign choices concrete.
Economics + examples
Sales kit / calculator + appendix
Why: Show allocations, assumptions and test decisions.
Portal + calendar demo
Sales kit / synthetic client panel
Why: Demonstrate follow-up, proposals and manual content planning.
Review and Launch
Later explicit Launch in this task
Why: Matt checks this scope before one executor starts.
Parent ↔ child messages
Newest message firstThe restart story now covers qualification, proposals, follow-up and professional operating structure. All 24 execution criteria remain unverified because this phase prepares the assignment. The later executor will publish evidence and progress here.
Parent read setSmall files first
After a stall or completion, read the clean gist plus these short files. Keep raw thinking and tool logs out of the normal review path.
The full goal and private source reports are saved in this task’s workspace. Raw transcripts, private client records and confidential business inputs are excluded from this public page.
What to inspect firstThree consequential choices
The proposal is a functional demo now and a clearly scoped production phase after restart.
The module menu offers choice. The recommendation must keep spend focused enough to learn.
ROI is a transparent scenario model until qualified-lead and closing data support a forecast.
Work and proof
One card per deliverableD1 · Present a credible restart offer
Make the 280,000 Ft monthly service clear, structured and worth restarting.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Published deck screenshots at desktop and phone widths, blind visual description and criterion comparison, plus a copy/source audit.
Screenshot evidence pending · D1.1
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Scope matrix and plain-language addendum outline cross-checked against the actual available contract and current user decisions. No legal execution is implied.
Proof: Source ledger with exact paths/URLs, dates, claim anchors, uncertainty labels and an assertion audit.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not change the 280,000 Ft monthly fee, bind Matt to new obligations, sign an addendum, or invent included production quantities. Label proposed service limits for commercial review.
- Do not blame Márti, guarantee lead volume or sales, call form starts qualified leads, or present archived platform numbers as current performance.
D2 · Map selectable campaign modules
Show how a small budget funds a focused set of product and audience opportunities.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Six complete module cards and a structure matrix. Auditable coverage of M01–M06 and no double-counting across platforms.
Proof: Annotated desktop/mobile journey mockup with seven named or explicitly unresolved product slots and screenshot proof. Attempt current-source recovery per slot; each unavailable price/delivery/assembly field must say pending confirmation and name the needed input and responsible role. Passing proves the representative framework and honest gap disclosure, not verified product readiness.
Screenshot evidence pending · D2.2
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Dated official platform citations and, where available, account readback for exact interests. Unavailable interests have supported fallbacks. Launch-order and overlap table. Any proposed CRM-to-platform lead-quality feedback states account/objective eligibility, event linkage and volume prerequisites, with manual stage reporting as fallback.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not claim Meta can directly target wealth, personality, the “bad boy” persona, or an unverified interest. Treat age and gender as positioning until actual control behaviour is checked.
- Do not reuse table economics for HINOMI, invent foldability/room-fit/product rankings, or split 2,000 Ft/day into several underfunded platforms without an explicit reason.
D3 · Model budgets and sales economics
Compare affordable funding choices and expose the assumptions behind returns.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Automated arithmetic cases for both budgets and all month lengths, plus allocation screenshots and blind descriptions.
Screenshot evidence pending · D3.1
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Independent formula checks including zero leads, zero close rate, zero spend, delayed sales, invalid inputs and a known hand-calculated example. Public demo uses labelled sample inputs and accepts private inputs locally.
Screenshot evidence pending · D3.2
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Assumption/source ledger with dated FX source and a short model interpretation. Require a presentation-ready side-by-side private 200k/350k comparison using the user-supplied table estimates, labelled hypothetical and reconciled to calculator formulas, plus a public comparison with safe illustrative inputs that still explains both funding choices. Separate table economics and any HINOMI placeholder.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not manufacture a measured close rate, predicted ROI, statistically certain volume, or a guaranteed return. Do not infer net profit from an undefined gross margin.
- Do not double-count reserve, retargeting, management fees, VAT, delivery or assembly. Never publish private real customer data or confidential source records.
D4 · Show representative ads and seasonal journeys
Demonstrate the method with useful examples and clearly described placeholders.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Coverage table plus actual desktop/mobile screenshots. At least six complete example cards, twelve angle briefs and clearly labelled image/video placeholders.
Screenshot evidence pending · D4.1
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Seasonal cards and dependency schedule with stock, margin, offer permission and delivery cutoff provenance. Unconfirmed dates remain explicit inputs.
Proof: Storyboard, shot/asset list, factual verification notes and one illustrated representative frame or clearly labelled placeholder. No finished video is required.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not produce a full unpaid campaign build, bulk final ad library or production landing rollout. Use representative examples and detailed placeholders.
- Do not use unsupported “best in the world” claims, fake testimonials, deceptive product demonstrations, invented discounts or unverified holiday delivery promises.
D5 · Demonstrate lead and proposal management
Show how enquiries become followed-up opportunities, proposals and measurable sales.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Scripted demo journey and actual screenshots before/after reload, blind visual description and parent comparison. Browser-local demo data only, with an explicit browser/device-only persistence note.
Screenshot evidence pending · D5.1
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Synthetic proposal walkthrough, exact reused template paths, generated preview/output inspection and screenshot proof. Any missing source component is explicitly replaced with a labelled proposed layout.
Screenshot evidence pending · D5.2
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Fixed sample-data reconciliation with no orphan totals, dashboard screenshot proof and an implementation-scope document. Test a visible Reset sample data action after lead/proposal/calendar edits and verify it restores the same canonical fixture and totals, without touching any real data. Production build is a proposed post-restart phase.
Screenshot evidence pending · D5.3
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not copy Kertújítók customer records, private proposal data or tenant-specific rules. Reuse the Cloudflare panel’s relevant patterns and source structure only.
- Do not claim the demonstration is a connected production CRM, silently include a production rebuild in the fixed fee, send proposals, or run live follow-ups.
D6 · Demonstrate a manual content calendar
Give Márti a simple monthly plan and daily publishing workflow.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Create/edit/save/reload walkthrough and screenshot proof with blind visual description. Inspect the post/story copy and image directions against their website destinations. Local persistence limitations are visible.
Screenshot evidence pending · D6.1
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Week/month/day state checks before and after rescheduling, desktop and phone screenshots, blind description and comparison.
Screenshot evidence pending · D6.2
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Manual-entry reconciliation, status transition and screenshot proof. Agency/Márti roles match the service matrix.
Screenshot evidence pending · D6.3
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not add social account integrations, automatic publishing or invented synchronised metrics. The first version is manual.
- Do not blur a saved draft, scheduled item and actually published post, or promise unlimited creative production.
D7 · Define tests and reporting decisions
Explain what is measured, when evidence is sufficient and what changes next.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: At least four practical examples spanning price qualification, creative angle, lead/showroom journey and landing-page choice, with concrete outcome-to-action rules.
Proof: Worked win/loss/inconclusive examples with totals, period and uncertainty. Verify no universal lead-count threshold is falsely presented as statistical proof.
Proof: Sample weekly and monthly reports, agreed-as-proposed cadence and first-30-day measurement plan, reconciliation to demo data, desktop/mobile screenshot proof.
Screenshot evidence pending · D7.3
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not call CTR, cheap clicks, form starts or platform-attributed leads proof of sales quality. Avoid summing overlapping platform attribution.
- Do not prescribe a conclusive test after an arbitrary fixed number of leads or deadline. State what happens when volume cannot support inference.
D8 · Deliver a ready-to-present sales kit
Package the deck, demo and messages so Matt can present or share them directly.
Show criteria, constraints and evidence
Observable tests
Proof: Fresh HTTP/browser readback, desktop and phone interaction checks, disposable review-layer persistence test, deployed screenshots and blind visual description.
Screenshot evidence pending · D8.1
Actual tested interface → blind Luna High description → parent comparison. Attach each file/link here before checking.Proof: Copy audit against fee, scope, delivered links and user facts. Draft-only filenames and clear unsent status.
Proof: Final source/coverage audit, criterion evidence manifest, exact artifact paths/URLs and tested/untested list. Updated board on the same run URL.
Constraints to preserve
- Do not send Márti a message or publish a live advertising campaign. Deliver unsent copy and a shareable review link.
- Do not hide sensitive source data behind a new security layer. Keep public views non-sensitive, preserve stable document identity and existing unrelated pages.
Open decisions and blockers
Only unresolved itemsNo preparation blocker. Product facts, exact contract wording and sales rates are evidence inputs for the executor. If unavailable, the corresponding material must say so. The only launch decision is Matt’s later explicit Launch message.