⚠ INTERNAL ONLY — Giuseppe + Raffaello · Do not share with MAGG or any third party
Context
What Changed After the Call
The model has shifted. Two key changes vs. the original retainer approach.
Change 1 — Model: Fixed-fee retainer not approved. Omar is open to project-based pricing. We pitch one project, scope it, price it, close it. Expand from there.
Change 2 — Positioning: We're no longer pitching Raffaello individually. We're pitching AdapttoAI as a team. Omar sees us as a company, not a freelancer.
Business at a glance (confirmed May 5)
70
SKUs = 50% revenue (AAA)
17,000
Component SKUs (China)
60%
Production rate (April)
Target was $4.57M — hit $3M
$35M MXN
Monthly sales (April)
99% vs. prior year
Why MAGG is like Manel at the start
Omar arrived to the call with a list of pains, no single priority, and enthusiasm but no commitment. Same profile as Manel before we narrowed to one workflow. The lesson from Manel: don't try to scope everything at once. Pick the sharpest pain, deliver it well, then expand. Omar has even more surface area (1,500 SKUs, 8 warehouses, 17K components, 4 plants) — if we try to solve it all at once, we lose the deal in complexity.
Our job now: narrow to 1 project, make it concrete, price it, get to yes before May 25.
Project Selection
Two Projects — Sequenced, Not Parallel
Start Project A, close it, then Project B becomes the obvious Phase 2. Do not scope both for the same proposal.
Recommendation: Lead with Project A (Demand Planning Intelligence). Highest pain, most data ready, fastest to value, highest replication. Project B (Capacity Dashboard) is the natural follow-on — mention it to show the roadmap, but don't price it yet.
Omar's stated pain
- Production formula: historical avg × arbitrary safety factor
- Self-fulfilling forecast — supply constraint is invisible in the data
- AAA/A/B classification is manual, never updated automatically
- No velocity signal: how fast does a SKU sell when it's actually in stock?
- 70 AAA SKUs always produced; 1,430 others ignored
What we build
- True demand velocity: sales ÷ days in stock (not raw average)
- Auto-updating ABC tier classification on rolling window
- Tier-change alerts: "SKU X has crossed into AAA this month"
- Monthly production recommendation: margin × demand score, constrained by capacity
- Works on current Excel exports → plugs into NetSuite at go-live (Dec 2026)
Data readiness
Historical sales by SKU + branch (M1 Excel)
Confirmed, visible in screenshots
AAA/A/B category assignments
In M1, manual — can be re-derived
Inventory levels (ERP export)
Directionally correct, acknowledged gaps
Stock-out dates per SKU (for velocity calc)
❓ Confirm: derivable from ERP stock movements?
Cost and margin per SKU
Costs sheet shown — needs raw export
The strategic framing for Omar: MAGG's AAA/A/B system is exactly the industry-standard ABC ranking — the right intuition. What's missing is a velocity dimension and dynamic updating. The current formula creates a stockout-biased forecast: you underestimate demand for every SKU you don't produce enough of. The output of Project A is a prioritized list of experiments — "produce 3–5× the usual lot for these B-tier SKUs once" — to surface real suppressed demand. This is how the vicious cycle breaks.
Complexity
Medium
Structured data, well-defined logic
Time to value
3–4 weeks
First output in week 1 with real data
Replication
Very high
Universal manufacturing pain
NetSuite compat.
Yes
Source-agnostic design today
The pain
- Production plan set once at month start, no mid-month course correction
- 4 injection machines stopped in April — cascading shortfall caught only at month-end
- Planner's capacity data lives in a separate Excel nobody shares
- No feasibility check: "can we actually produce what M1 says?"
What we'd build
- M1 feasibility checker: planned production vs. available machine-hours
- Capacity utilization dashboard: planned vs. actual by plant, updated weekly
- Bottleneck identifier: which machine/line is the binding constraint?
- Mid-month replan alert: "tracking at 67% — here are recovery options"
Key dependency: Project B requires the planner to share the capacity Excel and to buy in to the project. Omar acknowledged adoption as the company's biggest challenge. Confirm planner willingness before scoping Project B — this is a blocking risk.
Supply Chain Triangle framing: Projects A + B together resolve MAGG's triangle — A addresses Sales (what to produce) and Finance (right margin mix), B addresses Operations (can we actually produce it). This makes the platform feel strategic: not dashboards, but a shared language between Sales, Finance, and Ops for the first time.
Pricing · Internal
Project A — Pricing Options
Three options. Lead with Standard. Prices in USD — confirm with Giuse whether to convert to MXN for the proposal (retainer was in MXN).
Decision needed: Do we present pricing in USD or MXN? The old retainer was in MXN. Given we're now pitching as a team/company, USD may feel more professional and aligns with the module framework. Discuss before the proposal.
Option A · Light
Demand Signal MVP
Core demand velocity model + auto-updating ABC tiers. Dashboard output. Fastest to deliver. Good entry point if Omar wants to start small.
Month 1
Implementation · one-time
$1,200/mo
Annual: $960/mo → $11,520 at M3
Option B · Standard ★ Lead with this
Demand Planning Intelligence
Full velocity model + ABC auto-tiers + production recommendation engine + tier-change alerts. The complete Project A scope.
Month 1
Implementation · one-time
$2,000/mo
Annual: $1,600/mo → $19,200 at M3
Option C · Pro
Demand + Capacity Bundle
Project A + Project B scoped together from day one. Higher impl fee due to combined complexity. Only offer if Omar asks about B explicitly.
Month 1
Implementation · one-time
$3,500/mo
Annual: $2,800/mo → $33,600 at M3
Year 1 economics (Standard — lead option)
| Line item | Monthly billing | Annual billing |
|---|
| Impl fee (Month 1) | $5,000 | $5,000 |
| Subscription (10 mo, M3–M12) | $20,000 | $19,200 (lump at M3) |
| Year 1 revenue | $25,000 | $24,200 |
| Build cost (partners + dev) | ~$18–24K estimate | same |
| Year 1 margin vs dev-only (~$10K) | +$15K (60%+) | +$14K |
Build cost note: Demand planning is Medium complexity (3–4 weeks). Estimate: Partners ~30h × $200 + Dev ~80h × $60 = $10,800 realistic. Standard impl fee ($5,000) recovers half the dev cost upfront, subscription covers the rest by Month 5. This is healthy — better than Aronlight Month 1 economics.
Pricing model debate: subscription vs. outcome-based
Subscription (recommended)
Monthly flat fee for the tool
Predictable for both sides. Easy to explain. "You pay $2,000/month and the system runs your monthly planning cycle, updates your tiers, and gives you a production recommendation." Revenue attribution isn't required.
Outcome-based (discuss with Giuse)
% of production value increase
Attractive in theory — ties payment to results. Hard in practice: attribution is messy (is the production improvement from our tool or the new shift?). Procurement (Opp 4) is a better fit for outcome pricing (freight savings are measurable). Not recommended for Project A.
Deal Strategy · Internal
How to Close Before May 25
The sequence: Send info request today → receive files this week → review data + confirm scope → generate proposal → Omar reviews → close by May 25.
Should we mention Project B in the proposal?
Pro
Mention B as Phase 2 roadmap
Shows Omar we're thinking strategically, not just fixing one thing. Explains why Project A is designed to be extensible (source-agnostic, feeds into capacity later). Earns more trust. Makes the overall investment feel purposeful.
Con
Risk of diluting the close
Omar already has many pain points and no clear decision. Showing two projects may trigger "let me think about the full scope" — and lose the May 25 momentum. If it delays the signature, it's not worth it. Decision: mention in narrative ("Phase 2 roadmap"), do NOT price it in the same proposal.
Framing for Omar: our tool vs. NetSuite
This is the single most important framing to get right. Omar is mid-NetSuite-implementation and may wonder whether to wait.
The line to use:
"NetSuite is your system of record — the historical ledger, the ERP source of truth. What we build is the system of intelligence sitting above it: a dynamic model that projects forward, updates every month, and gives you a recommendation. These are complementary. NetSuite tells you what happened. Our tool tells you what to do next. And it's designed to plug into NetSuite the day it goes live in December — you don't have to rebuild anything."
Urgency argument (for the May 25 conversation)
- Every month without demand velocity = another production cycle based on wrong data. June's plan is already being set.
- NetSuite goes live in December — if we start now, the first 6 months of data feeding into NetSuite will already be clean and structured.
- Start now, have value in month 3. Start in January, have value in April 2027.
Sales · Internal
Talking Points — When Omar Responds
Use these when specific objections come up. Not a script — know these, don't read them.
"What happened to the original proposal / retainer?"
"We took everything you shared and decided the right way to work together is project-based — one focused project, a clear deliverable, a fixed price. That's better for you (you know exactly what you get) and better for us (we can move fast without scope ambiguity). The retainer model was the right starting conversation before we understood the details. Now we do."
"Why just one project — there's a lot to do."
"That's exactly why we start with one. You showed us four or five pain areas. They're all real. But if we try to fix everything at once, nothing ships in time and it gets expensive fast. The demand planning problem is the one that everything else depends on — if you don't know what to produce, the capacity and procurement projects are building on a shaky foundation. Fix the foundation first, expand fast from there."
"Why not wait until NetSuite is live in December?"
"Because the data problem exists right now, and NetSuite won't fix it — it'll only record it more accurately. The demand velocity model we build today works on your current ERP exports. We design it to connect directly to NetSuite the moment it goes live. You get 6 months of clean data feeding into NetSuite from day one — rather than starting NetSuite with the same broken formula."
"The impl fee is a new cost."
"It covers the build — one time, never again. From Month 3 onwards you pay the subscription and that's it. The ongoing fee is significantly lower than the retainer, and you know exactly what it includes. The total cost of the first year is less than two months of the retainer we originally discussed."
"What about the procurement / 17K components?"
"That's Phase 2 — and it's actually the highest-ROI project on your list because freight savings are measurable. But it has a hard dependency: it needs the production plan (Project A) to be solid first, otherwise you're buying components based on the same broken forecast. Fix demand, then we fix procurement. By the time NetSuite is stable, Phase 2 is ready to go."
Blockers
Open Questions Before We Can Finalize Scope
Most of these get answered when Omar sends the files. A few require a follow-up question.
Budget
What does Omar expect to pay for one project?"Project-based" was approved but no number was discussed. We need to anchor the conversation before the proposal. The impl fee + subscription model is new to him — make sure the framing lands before we share a number.
Champion
Who is the internal project champion?Omar is the owner and decision-maker, but who runs M1 daily? Who manages the planner's Excel? We need one internal person for data handoffs and validation — otherwise every cycle requires Omar's time directly.
Currency
USD or MXN for the proposal?The old retainer was in MXN. Our module framework is USD. If we switch, we should acknowledge it. Discuss with Giuse — presenting in USD may signal that we're a structured company, not a freelancer.
Data quality
Does the ERP track stock-out events per SKU?This is the key input for true velocity calculation. Without stock-out flags, we can't distinguish "sold 20 because demand is 20" from "sold 20 because that's all we had." Worth asking directly in the info request.
AAA logic
How is the current AAA/A/B assignment made?Is there a written rule (top N SKUs by revenue) or is it fully manual / historically frozen? This determines whether we're replacing a bad formula or replacing a manual judgment process entirely.
Decision
Can Omar sign independently or does it require approval above him?He's the owner and the son of the founder — likely can decide, but MAGG is a family business in transition. Worth confirming before we spend time on a formal proposal that needs to go up the chain.
Action · Send Today
Information Request — WhatsApp Draft
This is the message to send Omar today or tomorrow. Raffaello leads, Giuse reviews. Goal: get the files before end of week so we can scope and price by next week.
Spanish — WhatsApp tone (warm, direct, no fluff)
Omar, qué bueno hablar contigo hoy. Estuvimos revisando todo y tenemos una recomendación clara: arrancar con un proyecto enfocado en planeación de demanda y recomendación de producción. Es donde vemos el mayor dolor, los datos más listos y el impacto más rápido — con un camino claro para expandir desde ahí.
Para confirmar el alcance y darte una propuesta concreta antes del 25 de mayo, necesitaríamos algunos archivos. No tiene que salir nada sensible — con claves de SKU está bien:
1. El archivo M1 — el de planeación de producción con categorías AAA/A/B, factores de seguridad y proyecciones mensuales. Con una muestra de 50–100 SKUs es suficiente para empezar.
2. Historial de ventas — últimos 12 meses, por SKU y sucursal si es posible. El sheet de Ventas que nos mostraste, o un export del ERP en ese formato.
3. Costos y Precios de Lista — el archivo que nos mostraste. Hasta parcial está bien para entender la estructura de márgenes.
4. Snapshot de inventario — stock actual por SKU, aunque sea con la variabilidad que mencionaste.
5. Una pregunta rápida — ¿hay alguien en tu equipo (el planner, responsable de ops) que quieras involucrar en el proyecto? Lo querremos incluir desde el inicio.
Con eso, armamos la propuesta. Meta: tenerte algo concreto la próxima semana.
Files we're asking for — and why each one matters
1
M1 Excel — the core. Without this we can't confirm the formula logic, the tier assignments, or the safety factor structure. A sample of 50–100 SKUs is enough to scope the build.
2
12-month sales history — needed to compute true velocity and validate the stockout-bias hypothesis. The more granular (daily by branch), the better the first output.
3
Costs/margins — needed to rank SKUs by margin × demand, not just volume. Without this, the production recommendation is incomplete.
4
Inventory snapshot — needed to calculate days-of-stock and confirm ERP data quality. Even directionally correct data is enough to design the model.
5
Internal champion question — surfaces the adoption risk early. If there's no internal owner, Project B (capacity) is risky. Project A is less dependent on a single person, but still better with one.
What's Next
Next Steps — Before May 25
-
1
Send information request to OmarUse draft above. Raffaello leads. Giuse reviews before send. Goal: files by end of this week.
Raffaello · today
-
2
Align on pricing model + currencySubscription vs. outcome-based. USD vs. MXN. Option B as lead. Decide before files arrive so the proposal is ready to go.
Giuse + Raffa · this week
-
3
Review received files + confirm data qualityOnce M1 + sales arrive: validate velocity calc feasibility, check for stockout flags, confirm margin data. Do a spot-check on 5 AAA SKUs.
After files received
-
4
Generate proposal (Project A)One project, one price, one start date. Standard format (Aronlight/Lamosa). Mention Project B as Phase 2 roadmap in narrative — do NOT price it in this proposal.
After data review
-
5
Manuel: push for parallel momentumDon't let MAGG waiting on files stall everything. Push Manuel project forward this week in parallel.
Giuse · tomorrow