QuoteAI — Business Model & Engagement#

Status: 🟢 Active — persistent strategic doc Authors: Dan Hannah & Clay Created: 2026-04-22 (split from pitch.md on 2026-04-23) Parent: QuoteAI Project Design Doc | Companion: Andy Meeting Brief

Purpose#

Persistent business model and engagement framework for QuoteAI. Distinct from meeting-specific artifacts — see andy-meeting.md for tactical prep for any one meeting.

This doc evolves with the engagement over time. Meeting docs are one-off and get archived after the meeting happens.

The Model — "Buy me, not a product"#

QuoteAI is not sold as shrinkwrapped SaaS. Brehob hires Dan on a monthly retainer to deliver incremental, bespoke value against their specific workflows. The app is the living deliverable of that work.

• Why right for this stage: no team, no support org, no roadmap committee. Selling "software" would misleadingly abstract over reality.
• Why right for Brehob: de-risked buy-in. Each month is new deliverables against measurable value, not a commitment to vaporware.
• Why right for Dan: every new request becomes paid work. Scope extension IS the business model.

Product with Dedicated Engineering Support (PITCH-D2)#

The engagement is presented externally as software custom-fit to Brehob, with dedicated engineering support from Dan to keep it working and extending it as needs evolve. Product framing, with Dan-as-engineer as a feature of the product (dedicated support), not a separate billable service.

Never say "consulting" in customer-facing material — the word carries transactional / hourly / fungible connotations that undercut the pitch. That vocabulary stays with legal and accounting only.

Real-world analog: hiring an architect with ongoing involvement. You're "getting a house" (product framing — what you live with); the contract is for architectural services (structural framing — how the legal agreement flows). The house exists because of the architect's work; tightly coupled; but what Brehob experiences and talks about is the tool.

Externally (pitch, leadership, CFO):

• "You're buying software custom-fit to Brehob, with dedicated engineering support from me."
• The $5K/mo covers the tool + ongoing engineering to improve it
• Value on Brehob's P&L: "quotes generated, salespeople more productive, deals closed faster"

Internally (legal / tax / accounting):

• Structurally a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with monthly retainer terms
• Dan is a 1099 vendor; Brehob expenses the retainer as "professional services"
• The MSA is where the services framing lives; the pitch narrative never mentions it

Downstream implications resolved cleanly:

• IP: Dan owns the code (architects own their design methods); Brehob gets perpetual non-exclusive use of their specific implementation
• Renewal: Brehob renews access to the dedicated engineering support, not a software license
• Termination: they can stop paying anytime; they keep what's been built to date; no re-billing for existing capability — only for new work

If asked at the meeting "are we buying the tool or your time?":

"You're buying software that solves this specific problem for Brehob, with dedicated engineering support from me to keep it working and extending it as your needs evolve. Structurally it's a Master Services Agreement — but in practice you get a working tool plus an engineer who cares about making it better for you."

See quoteai/decisions.md § PITCH-D2 for full rationale + alternatives considered.

The Thesis — Why Bespoke Software Is Possible Now#

Ten years ago, if a company like Brehob wanted software tailored to their workflow, the options were:

• License a giant tool (Salesforce, SAP) and spend $500K+ on consultants customizing it — the tool bends you more than you bend it
• Hire an internal engineering team and spend $2M+ building from scratch
• Accept that software won't fit and keep using spreadsheets

Most industrial distributors (like Brehob) picked option 3 — the one that meets reality where it lives, but at the cost of every salesperson re-typing the same data, every admin retyping quotes, every minute spent on formatting rather than selling.

Agentic AI changes the math by ~100x. A single engineer with the right tools now builds software genuinely custom-fit to a specific workflow for the price of a mid-range SaaS subscription. The output is bespoke; the cost is commodity.

What this unlocks for Brehob specifically:

• Your existing spreadsheet is the source of truth — not a starting point for custom fields inside Salesforce
• Your 22 years of quote history is the training data — not proprietary data locked in a vendor's cloud
• Your salespeople's workflow stays intact — the tool wraps what they already do, rather than making them learn a new system
• New features land in days, not procurement cycles — because the engineer knows your business, not a generic SMB persona

This isn't "AI for sales." It's your workflow, made durable as software, by someone who knows the domain cold (John) and has built ML/AI systems in far more demanding environments (Dan — F1).

The tool is the proof of concept. The thesis is the product.

The Extensible Pipeline#

Product framed as a 4-stage pipeline with pluggable stages:

Collect → Draft → Review → Done

What the MVP delivers today#

All four stages are live end-to-end. This isn't a mockup or a slide deck — it's working software.

• Collect — existing form (E3) + spreadsheet upload (E4, in progress)
• Draft — Claude Agent SDK fires MCP tools (search_line_items, search_past_quotes, search_equipment) to assemble the draft from 22 years of Brehob's quote history
• Review — three-gate annotation system (amber caveat / red review / blue price) + inline hover popovers + chip navigator + pricing MetaRail (E4) surfacing commission take-home
• Done — rendered markdown quote with Brehob letterhead, copy-to-clipboard

Candidate future extensions#

Each becomes a possible deliverable for a future month of retainer work. Quote Log is the lead — John specifically mentioned it, and it directly answers Andy's "how does this impact the business?" question.

• Quote Log + Sales Leadership Dashboard — unified sales-activity surface built on top of the quote data: which salespeople made what quotes for which customers, total quoted amounts, pipeline status, commission distribution across the team, historical quote search. Consolidates what were earlier listed as separate items (quote analytics, commission visibility, historical viewer) into one coherent feature. Directly visualizes business impact; highest-leverage near-term candidate for the Andy pitch + leadership conversation.
• Complete proposal packaging — quote + diagrams + supporting materials (catalog sheets, warranty info, installation diagrams) bundled as one deliverable
• Inventory integration — real-time stock checks, availability constraints, alternative-product suggestions when items are out of stock
• Preventive maintenance quotes — separate quote type for service contracts / recurring maintenance (different template, recurring-billing data model)
• Customer-facing quote portal — customer opens a link, views the quote, asks clarifying questions in-thread, e-signs. Replaces email back-and-forth.
• CRM integration — push closed quotes to Salesforce / Hubspot / etc.
• AI-assisted objection handling — when a customer pushes back on price or timing, tool surfaces responses based on past-quote data where similar objections were handled successfully
• Multi-region / multi-territory support — if Brehob expands beyond current territories

The shape of the roadmap#

Brehob chooses the order based on their priorities, not a vendor-dictated roadmap. Each future month is scoped with Andy (or successor relationship owner) at the start of the month. That's the "enhance don't change" principle at the engagement level — Brehob owns the priority stack.

Contract Shape#

The five knobs Andy (and eventually leadership) will ask about. Not all need to be surfaced in the Andy meeting itself (PITCH-D1 — meeting is champion-enablement, not deal-close), but they need pre-decided answers so any can be addressed confidently.

1. What does $5K buy in a given month?#

• (a) Unlimited — "Dan handles whatever Brehob asks for"
• (b) Hour-capped — "Up to 40 hrs/mo; extra rolls to next month"
• (c) Deliverable-based — "Monthly scope conversation; Dan commits to 3-5 deliverables"

Working answer: (c) deliverable-based. Aligns with "embedded engineer" framing; each month kicks off with a 30-min scope conversation. If Brehob asks for more mid-month, it bumps to next. Hour caps feel transactional (contractor-y); unlimited is a burnout trap.

2. Pricing structure#

• (a) Flat $5K/mo — simple, no volume risk
• (b) Per-quote — aligns incentives but makes both parties anxious about usage
• (c) Hybrid — $5K base + % of generated value, capped

Working answer: (a) flat for the 3-month trial, revisit after. Per-quote/hybrid adds measurement overhead and "is Dan gaming this?" anxiety. Flat is friction-free for a trust-building first engagement.

3. Termination#

• 30-day notice on either side (default)
• Brehob can terminate for cause (non-delivery) without notice
• Dan can terminate for non-payment after 14 days

4. Renewal after trial#

• Month-to-month; no auto-escalation
• $5K stays until explicitly renegotiated
• Quarterly "scope + price check-in" with Andy (or whoever owns the relationship)

5. Priority tier as Dan's portfolio grows#

• During trial + first year: Brehob is priority-1 (< 24hr urgent, < 1wk normal)
• If Dan signs other clients later: Brehob stays priority-1 unless mutually agreed otherwise

These 5 knobs become a one-page MSA-light for leadership approval after the Andy meeting.

Risks & Mitigations#

IP portability#

• Concern: without careful contracting, Brehob could claim exclusive rights, blocking resale to other distributors.
• Position: Dan retains code + domain learnings; Brehob gets perpetual, non-exclusive use on their own infrastructure. Language TBD.

Monthly deliverable legibility#

• Concern: "incremental value" is squishy; Andy needs to feel each $5K is earned.
• Mitigation: monthly scorecard — quotes generated, time saved, errors caught, commission $ surfaced. Establishes review cadence from month 1.

Dependency risk ("what if Dan disappears?")#

• Mitigation: documented handoff plan, code in Brehob-visible private repo, pre-agreed buy-out price for ownership transfer.

Scope creep from Brehob#

• Concern: Brehob requests accumulate faster than Dan can deliver. Without process, the retainer becomes a rolling pile of "quick asks" and Dan burns out.
• Mitigation: Monthly scope conversation with Andy (ties to deliverable-based scope — see Contract Shape § 1). New mid-month asks queue for next month's scope instead of interrupting.

Dan's capacity as portfolio grows#

• Concern: Dan takes on a second client; Brehob's response times degrade without explicit priority hierarchy.
• Mitigation: Priority-1 tier baked into contract (< 24hr urgent, < 1wk normal) during trial + first year. Concurrent client engagements don't drop Brehob from priority-1 unless Brehob mutually agrees.

Data security#

• Concern: Customer PII (names, phones, addresses), pricing, commissions all flow through the system. A breach is both legal liability and Brehob-relationship-ending.
• Current state: app is local-only on Dan's dev machine. Not a real risk for the demo, but becomes one the moment the tool runs on anything persistent at Brehob.
• Mitigation: Before hosted deploy, commit to: encryption at rest, no PII in logs, Brehob-controlled backup schedule, written incident-response SOP. Blocker for "post-MVP hosted deploy" scope.

Time horizons: IP portability matters at contract signing. Scope creep + capacity are ongoing management disciplines. Data security matters at hosted-deploy time. Different risks need answers at different moments.

Pricing & Success Metrics#

Pricing#

All numbers pre-validation — revisit after Andy conversation and leadership engagement.

Contract structure lean: flat $5K/mo for the trial, revisit after (Contract Shape § 2).

Success Metrics (post-Andy, pre-trial)#

Once leadership approves the trial, refine these with Andy + sales leadership before month 1:

Quantitative (measured from the app)

• ≥ N quotes generated per month (anchor: John's "good year = 150/salesperson/yr"; target uplift)
• ≥ X% of generated quotes close to revenue (tagged manually in the tool)
• Average quote turnaround < Y minutes (baseline today: ~48 hours)
• Per-salesperson quote throughput delta month-over-month

Qualitative (surveyed monthly)

• Salesperson NPS > +30 (or delta from baseline)
• Leadership "would you renew at current price" — yes / no / maybe-at-lower-price

Renewal gate at month 3

• Quant hit + qual positive → auto-renew at $5K/mo
• Quant miss + qual positive → renew at negotiated rate ($3-4K while scope re-aligns)
• Qual negative → terminate, Brehob keeps code via buy-out clause

Open: realistic targets for N / X / Y come from a 30-day baseline after onboarding, not pre-trial guesses. Commit to measuring baseline + setting targets with leadership sign-off.

Stakeholder Framework#

Brehob's decision-making isn't a single-person gate.

Confirmed#

• John — champion, brings Dan to Andy, first internal advocate
• Andy — first decision-maker; brings QuoteAI to leadership for approval (not the final gate)

Likely exists at Brehob (confirm via John)#

• Leadership team (C-suite or directors) — actual approval gate for the retainer
• IT / security lead — will want to review tech stack, data handling, deployment architecture. Involvement triggers when moving to hosted deploy (post-demo).
• Sales leadership (VP Sales?) — manages the salespeople. Buy-in = adoption; resistance = dead on arrival regardless of leadership approval.
• Finance / procurement — $5K/mo is likely a director-approval line item. Invoice structure needs to fit their AP systems.
• Legal — for MSA / NDA. Brehob may have a standard vendor template.

Questions for John before the Andy meeting#

• Who else at Brehob would need to approve / review this beyond Andy?
• Any known objections or concerns from the sales team?
• What's the standard vendor onboarding process (NDA, W-9, insurance, etc.)?
• Does Brehob have a preferred contract / payment terms template?
• What's the cultural read on AI / software tools at Brehob?
• Per-quote commission estimate — to model the throughput-uplift ROI story

Open Questions#

• Right opening price anchor — $5K, $7.5K, higher? (Depends on leadership's reaction post-Andy.)
• Exclusivity windows — any value, or avoid?
• Trademark / domain check on "QuoteAI" product name (several tiny GitHub repos already use it).
• What does Brehob consider a "win" after 3 months? (Becomes the refined Success Metrics target.)

Update this doc after every stakeholder conversation. Meeting-specific tactics live in andy-meeting.md or successor meeting docs.