COMMERCIAL DISCUSSION EDITION · 14 OCTOBER 2026
The developer business case
A measurable software proposition with a separate regional housing relationship.
Customer and purchasing problem
Target developers who manage several projects and repeatedly compile feasibility research, consultant updates, funding evidence and procurement comparisons. The initial buying case is less preparation time and better visibility of open dependencies. No customer savings, market share or paid traction is established in the recovered product package.
Instruction-driven value
The commercial model converts a detailed user brief into scoped departmental preparation. Current source documents, budgets, deadlines and output requirements give specialists the context needed for more relevant drafts. Approved corrections support governed project continuity. Bounded drafting tasks target minutes rather than hours or days of repeated manual compilation, subject to pilot evidence and required review.
Planned 24/7 access from a mobile phone or PC gives authorized users a common route to project documents, tasks and decision packages. Department access follows project, entity and confidentiality permissions. Secure remote records, background agents and availability commitments require production deployment.
First workflows
- Opportunity to feasibility and funding package preparation, with source-linked assumptions.
- Supplier comparison and lead-time consequences for modular components.
- Drawing revision consequences for costs, areas and approval requirements.
Keep each pilot bounded. Human review and corrective effort must count in the time comparison. Automation of model parsing or regulated professional judgment requires separate validation.
Illustrative customer value
| Input or result | Assumption / calculation |
|---|---|
| Team and working year | 8 users, 46 weeks |
| Net time recovered | 6 hours per person each week after review/rework |
| Annual hours | 8 × 46 × 6 = 2,208 |
| Loaded labour cost | CAD $85/hour |
| Annual capacity value | 2,208 × $85 = $187,680 |
| First-year software and setup | $3,000 × 12 + $15,000 = $51,000 |
| Net capacity value | $136,680 |
| First-year ROI | $136,680 ÷ $51,000 = 268% |
| Break-even | 600 hours/year, or 1.63 hours/person/week |
Assumptions, not achieved results. Capacity value is not automatically a cash reduction. Cash savings require actual spending changes. Taxes, other implementation costs and error/delay avoidance excluded. At 2 hours/person/week, value is $62,560 and first-year net capacity value is $11,560. At 4 hours, value is $125,120 and net value is $74,120.
Proposed revenue model
Pilot: CAD $12,000 for eight weeks on one project after release readiness. Regional: CAD $3,000/month plus CAD $15,000 onboarding, three active projects and ten named users. Portfolio: CAD $6,000/month plus CAD $25,000 onboarding, ten projects and 25 users. Treat all figures as negotiation anchors. Define compute, storage, document volume, support response, overage approval, term and data scope in the agreement. A portion of the paid pilot may credit the first annual contract if agreed.
Illustrative cost to serve
| Regional account/month | Assumed CAD cost |
|---|---|
| Compute and model usage | $600 |
| Hosting and storage | $100 |
| Support: 6 hours at $75 | $450 |
| Quality oversight: 3 hours at $100 | $300 |
| Total direct monthly cost | $1,450 |
| Contribution at $3,000/month | $1,550 / 51.7% |
These costs are placeholders to replace with actual telemetry and labour records. They exclude research and development, sales, corporate overhead, insurance, tax and financing. Three regional accounts would yield CAD $108,000 annual subscription revenue and $55,800 direct annual contribution under these assumptions. This is a scenario, not a revenue forecast or valuation.
Illustrative onboarding: 80 hours at CAD $100 plus CAD $2,000 direct migration/setup cost totals CAD $10,000. A CAD $15,000 onboarding fee leaves CAD $5,000 direct contribution before overhead. Reprice if the implementation scope differs.
The regional housing arrangement
Use separate software and ACT project agreements. The developer pays software fees and undertakes a defined local housing project at agreed compensation. ACT's project agreement specifies ownership or tenure structure, affordability terms, funding, planning responsibilities, design standards, construction milestones, reporting, inspection, warranties, cost changes and dispute resolution. No developer owes free construction by becoming a software customer.
Software credits may attach to independently verified housing milestones, with a stated cap. Territory rights should remain conditional, measurable and reviewable. Document conflicts of interest, related-party arrangements and board authority. Confirm the applicable legal entities and mandates before contracting.
Pilot protocol and evidence
Choose at least 20 comparable tasks across three workflows. Record baseline preparation time and pilot preparation, review and rework time. Track accepted output, unsupported factual statements, source coverage, approval control, software cost and reviewer effort. Proposed targets: 25% less net preparation time, 90% output acceptance after review and no approval bypass. These are targets, not present performance. Review whether the sample is representative before extrapolating annual savings.
Weeks 1–2 establish baseline and access. Weeks 3–6 run bounded workflows. Weeks 7–8 reconcile results and decide the next scope. The clock starts after controlled release readiness and partner onboarding conditions are met.
Release conditions
The recovered MVP records 58/58 passing local tests. It has 19 command routes, a responsive interface, read-only memory and simulated execution. Before customer use: authenticated identity and MFA, server-enforced object access, durable scoped approvals, persistent jobs with idempotency and queues, complete memory lifecycle, security hardening, backup/restore testing, configured live adapters and named usability/security/professional reviews.
Thirty departments describe the proposed architecture. Continuous agent execution, production integrations and automated BIM analysis are not verified by this prototype. Existing HR and Charity domains appear in adapter contracts, which require live configuration and testing.
Go-to-market and decision
Proposed first cohort: three developers with one defined project each. Qualify project readiness, data permissions, recurring task volume, available reviewers and a credible regional housing opportunity. Build references only after the measured pilot and partner consent. Track conversion, retained projects, net time saved, cost per account and housing milestones. No customer logos or testimonial claims should appear before verification.
Source and terms
Product source: HALO_BIM_Plus_Command_MVP_2026-10-14.zip, README.md, qa/RESULTS-2026-10-14.md, orchestrator/src/catalog.js and integration/integration-map.md. Commercial assumptions and the 30-function expansion derive from Ian's brief and this proposed business design. No land acquisition, funding award, planning approval, charitable status or development-charge exemption is asserted here.