Commercial priorities and the first product experiment

The catalog contains 41 software/business dossiers, all 372 family assessments and 719 inventoried manuscripts. The leading hypothesis remains one shared evidence and model-assurance platform. There are 34 runnable utilities, 21 documentary contracts and 17,868 passed checks in 48 saved reports. These are research and integration evidence; no buyer demand, profitable deployment or independent proof acceptance has been established.

Build first: an Optimization Assurance Workbench for facility-planning reviews by logistics/operations consultancies. This is the selected first experiment within the shared platform, not a validated market winner. A concrete generated case shows a solver FEASIBLE plan independently certified optimal by an exact dual witness. Source runtime remains unestablished, so use conventional proposal engines and useful independent checking. First product specification, revised dossier.

Build and earning queue

These overlap within one platform; do not sum them as independent customers or forecast total revenue from the number of modules. Complete catalog, family directory.

What the new comparisons establish

The public fixed-margin event has exact probability 5/143 under intended conditional independence versus 3/7 under uniform feasible tables. It crosses a declared 1/20 threshold because the law changes. A fresh isolated SciPy 1.18.1 run now agrees across 284 margin pairs/494 observed tables and five fixture cases, with 586 controls. Existing statistical tools already provide the base law; potential value is a traceable law/constraint/event review, not replacing an erroneous RNG. Updated data dossier, public report.

The scheduling source supplies a complexity classification and bounded global-description proof with exponent 150020, not a practical speedup. The new tiny reference passes 3,346 controls and finds an exact three-slot schedule where one priority heuristic takes four. OR-Tools reaches the same independently checked optima on all eight generated cases. In one case its FEASIBLE proposal attains an elementary lower bound; in another, OPTIMAL status alone does not fill an exhausted independent reference. Keep the direct scheduler deferred and evaluate only a narrow assurance adapter. Scheduling dossier.

The subset-sum sources have separate two-sided faster-time and one-sided lower-space decision guarantees. Their known 64-bit main guards first pass at 600,000 and 36 billion items, while additional fixed cutoffs are unselected. Direct source backends are deferred. A generated repeated-value reference preserves exact binomial item multiplicity, but conventional CP-SAT already provides checked feasible selections on the same controls. Vendor matching/manual ambiguity review also exists. Evaluate a bounded identity/count/witness module only if it changes a recurring review decision. Revised selection dossier.

The literal-packaging source offers a constructed factor-two symbol bound. The prototype emits checked length-aware byte-view artifacts and measures complete indexed/compressed bytes. In the public 48-title sample, 28 raw bytes saved give no gzip reduction and grow XZ by 32 bytes. Synthetic periodic overlap saves bytes already through conventional greedy. Established compiler/linker pooling is a strong baseline, and an assumed AUD 4,000 for 20 hours assessment leaves only AUD 400 before other costs. Keep commercial confidence low and defer the full source backend until actual construction and useful workload evidence exist. Packaging dossier.

The numerical-range source claims the sharp complete constant two. The new exact reference separately supplies finite norm-threshold evidence and covered-domain polynomial uppers; 857 finite and 195 live-library controls passed. On a generated sharpness example, the conditional new bound fits 2.2 where the prior-bound calculation does not, but direct exact norm-two evidence already suffices and costs far fewer selected arithmetic charges. Enclosure reuse across many expensive polynomial error calculations is a potential workflow, unimplemented and untested here. Keep a bounded review module at low commercial confidence and defer a general library. Numerical dossier.

Facility planning adds 5,127 reference, 34 solver and four extra dual controls. Existing software matches the tiny optima; no source solver advantage is shown. The specific opportunity is a better review/report workflow, with unknown demand. Threshold PDF pages 1-5/27-35 and recovery pages 1-6 reveal fixed-accuracy constants, retained history expansion, surplus-removal overhead and a distinct anchor/proxy promise. Defer the direct backend. Comparison.

Direct backends still deferred

The literal general table sampler, accelerated matcher and perfect-matching FPRAS have extreme schedules or prerequisites. The switch-chain claim concerns a specified complete-host kernel and all steps; thin-tree/spectral constructions have unselected thresholds or expensive schedules. Uniform k-server activation can exceed a deployment horizon, and language-class derandomization does not preserve arbitrary random outputs. The current JSON permutation provider loses the measured storage comparison against a packed array, while the universal source sweep constant is unselected. Tiny finite references must not be relabeled as those unrestricted source backends. Feasibility evidence.

The positive-basis algebra audit remains a low-confidence specialist opportunity: an existing CAS supplies much of the underlying computation and no recurring buyer decision is shown. Identifiability/uniqueness theorems and asymptotic physics claims also require separate numerical, measurement, hardware and finite-instance bridges.

Price and delivery hypotheses

The shared review pilot uses an illustrative AUD 10,000 integration fee and AUD 180 per specialist hour. At 35 hours direct labor is AUD 6,300, leaving AUD 3,700 before sales, support and overhead; 56 hours already cost AUD 10,080. A scheduling module hypothesis is AUD 5,000 with 20 hours of direct labor, leaving AUD 1,400 before other costs; 30 hours exceed the fee. These are assumptions for testing, not quotes, revenue or profitable delivery evidence.

A numerical engineering-review hypothesis uses AUD 9,000 and 35 hours at AUD 180/hour, leaving AUD 2,700 before overhead; 55 hours cost AUD 9,900. This is unvalidated and overlaps the shared platform rather than adding another independent customer.

The ten-case expert packet is prepared and unperformed. Its eight scope-error cases and two synthetic documentary controls retain their archived thirteen-contract edition, separate from the current twenty-one-contract registry. Independently measure material gaps, false alarms, correction effort and preparation time; repeat-reading effects are not report benefit. A recurring subscription requires demonstrated repeated decision value and low support cost. Current pilot specification.

The first facility-review price experiment is AUD 5,000-10,000. At an illustrative AUD 7,500 and 25 hours at AUD 180/hour, labor is AUD 4,500 and the remainder AUD 3,000 before other costs; 45 hours cost AUD 8,100. These assumptions are unvalidated and overlap the shared platform. Subscription value requires repeated studies and bounded support.

Next business decision

Build the first review workflow around the bounded checker and a conventional solver adapter, then evaluate it against the consultancy's existing process on permissioned studies. Keep model errors, numerical/certificate evidence, source proof and commercial acceptance separate. No external outreach, purchase or paid compute occurred. Research is published to the authorized GitHub repository and Dokploy site; this is not a deployed customer optimization service.