The defaults below are PLANNING ASSUMPTION values from our operating plan, not measured customer outcomes. We have none to show yet. The point of the model is the structure: what is counted as hard, what is counted as risk, and how the contract compares to each separately.
1. Observable hard value (deterministic)
Two things you can measure on a timesheet and a warehouse bill.
3. Result
The steady state is the renewal year, so that is the number to read first: year one carries the one-off $15,000 sprint on top of the $48,000 platform fee, and every year after it is the platform fee alone.
| Line | Value | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Triage payroll saved | $28,125 | DETERMINISTIC |
| Warehouse compute avoided | $15,000 | DETERMINISTIC |
| Observable hard value | $43,125 | |
| Risk mitigation value | $150,000 | PROBABILISTIC |
| Blended value | $193,125 | |
| Year-1 contract (platform + one-off sprint) | $63,000 | PUBLISHED |
| Renewal year (platform only) | $48,000 | PUBLISHED |
| Net risk-adjusted value | $130,125 |
The headline “3.0x” in our plan is a net risk-adjusted multiple, not a gross one; an earlier draft quoted 10.8x, which mixed periods and counted gross value. It was retracted in audit finding #1 and we mention it here so you know the difference is deliberate.
What this model does not claim
- It does not claim that every Sev-1 we find would have escaped. That is what the catch-share input is for; set it low if you distrust us.
- It does not include the value of a faster security review, a shorter procurement cycle for the agent, or a cleaner audit — real, but not countable, so not counted.
- It does not use the $180/hour fully allocated rate for hard value. That rate is correct for economic burden and wrong for a payroll saving.