Discovery call: Apr 21, 2026 · Validation written: Apr 22, 2026
Workflow hypothesis: Planner Co-Pilot (Track B)
Verdict: Validate More, leaning Go. Strong ICP fit (11/12), strong buyer signal, confirmed market gap, and La Cazadora would be the first Planner Co-Pilot case in the portfolio. Three reasons we are not yet at Go:
Next action: focused planning call with Daniel, Excels under NDA, validate the 10 questions in section 10, pick between (a) narrow ETA-on-order MVP that force-fits the current engine, or (b) state-driven engine extension that also unlocks MAGG B1/B2/B3 and Eurostar B4.
Scored 0 to 3 per dimension. Anything under 2 needs validation before proposing.
| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Gap to close |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workflow scoped | 2/3 | Planner Co-Pilot hypothesis named. Bounds fuzzy: schedule regen vs ETA-per-order vs both. Sales UI ownership TBD. | Narrow to ONE sub-workflow before pricing. |
| Owner named | 3/3 | Daniel owns the pain (co-CEO, ops). Brandon is internal ally. Ruco champions. | None. |
| Volume quantified | 1/3 | 120M tubes/year, 120 customers, 2-month lead time confirmed. Orders per day, schedule changes per day, planner output volume NOT confirmed. | Get daily and weekly volumes of planner output. |
| ROI handle | 1/3 | OEE 47.74% stated vs ~85% best-in-class. Lost customers on bad ETAs mentioned. No $ per lost order, no $ per OEE point. | What is 1 point of OEE worth in MXN? What is 1 lost customer worth? |
| Signal quality | 3/3 | Ruco: "ya llego Claude, tenemos que si o si investigar." Daniel volunteered the planning framing unprompted. Brothers aligned. Short decision chain. | None. |
From docs/icp.md V3. A lead needs 7+ to pursue, 10+ for strong fit.
| Condition | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| C1. ERP invested but underused | 3/3 | Microsoft GP confirmed. Daily workflows bypass it (Excel sabana, Pulsar, manual cotizador external). |
| C2. Back-office processing complexity | 3/3 | 100% made-to-order. Complex per-machine rules (diameter x threading x cap, color sequencing). Rules undocumented. |
| C3. High-volume manual workflows | 2/3 | 120M tubes/year at 500 employees is industrial scale. BUT the high-volume pain is operational (scheduling), not commercial. Daniel: "el cotizador funciona bien." |
| C4. Multi-party coordination | 3/3 | Planner + sales + plant operators + ERP admin + customer. Explicit multi-party visibility gap. |
ICP rubric gap flagged. C3 scored 2 not 3 only because the rubric assumes commercial transaction volume drives ROI. Here the ROI driver is operational volume (scheduling decisions, plant hours). ICP V4 should include operational-intensity clients. Log against docs/icp.md.
Read product/architecture-spec.md v1.0 and product/unified-product-mvp.md. The platform is a request-processing pipeline:
INGEST → PARSE → EVALUATE → ROUTE → EXECUTE
Every module currently in the registry (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, B2, B3, B4) fits this shape: something arrives, parse it, apply rules, route, act.
It is state-driven and cadence-based, not request-driven.
There is no incoming "request" to ingest. There is no single sender. The trigger is the passage of time or a change in state.
Treat "new confirmed order" as the INGEST event. PARSE the order, EVALUATE against current schedule and capacity, ROUTE to planner or auto-send ETA to sales, EXECUTE = publish ETA + update schedule proposal.
+ No engine change. Fastest to MVP. Clear pricing.
− Only covers ETA-per-order. Misses the 15-day schedule regen (which is the bigger pain).
Add a second workflow class: cadence triggers (cron), state-change triggers (ERP event, inventory threshold), aggregate-input pipelines.
+ Unlocks MAGG B1 (daily procurement), MAGG B2 (preventive maintenance thresholds), MAGG B3 (cadence dashboard), Eurostar B4 (SLA escalations). Opens a full Track B class.
− Engine work before client work. Risk of over-building before signal is validated.
Build it outside the unified engine.
+ No engine coupling risk.
− Diverges the product. Negates the "one platform" positioning.
Sell La Cazadora the ETA-per-order slice as the MVP (force-fits current engine, clear scope, clear pricing). In parallel, start the state-driven engine extension work (partially justified by MAGG already, La Cazadora makes it binding). Full-schedule regen ships in phase 2 once the engine supports it.
Engine extension is a Track B platform decision, not a La Cazadora decision. Validate with Raffaello this week.
Subagent scanned all 12 client folders.
| Client | Match | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| MAGG | Adjacent | "Production runs approved based only on historical sales, no forward demand signal" + "Production at 100% capacity." Procurement + maintenance pain. Not Planner Co-Pilot shape. |
| Eurostar | Adjacent, inferred | Reactive PM + technician knowledge in heads. After-sales, not factory scheduling. |
| Lamosa, Aronlight, AutoalDia, BCP | No match | All Track A commercial workflows. No scheduling pain. |
| Agro Super, Eurocomponents, PepsiCo, Nedelko, Futura Labs | Early stage | Not enough data. |
La Cazadora is the first confirmed Planner Co-Pilot signal. Not yet a pattern. If it closes and MAGG maintenance ships, pattern becomes n=2 and worth cataloging in Venture Signal.
Scanned all live proposals.
| Client | Modules pitched | Overlap with Planner Co-Pilot |
|---|---|---|
| Lamosa | A1 + A6 | None |
| Aronlight | A2 + A5 | None |
| MAGG | B1 + B2 + B3 | None (procurement/maintenance, not scheduling) |
| Eurostar | B2 + B4 | None |
| AutoalDia | A4 | None |
| BCP | AI Readiness HR | None |
Zero overlap. Planner Co-Pilot is a net-new workflow offering. No existing proposal touches production planning, capacity, ETA, or plant-to-sales visibility.
Scanned docs/competitors/*.md (12 files).
| Competitor | What they do | Addresses LaCaz pain? |
|---|---|---|
| Smartbase | Inbound PO entry to ERP | No |
| Mercura | Outbound RFQ / quote automation (YC W25) | No |
| Handle | Commercial WhatsApp / email for insurance | No |
| Tenex | AI strategy consulting | No |
| Vendavo | Pricing governance | No |
| Clarinet, Faction, LeadSales, Torrenegra, Treble, AI Readiness Ent | Commercial / workforce / strategy | No |
Gap confirmed. No documented competitor in our tracked set solves production planning + plant-to-sales visibility for mid-market LATAM manufacturers. Enterprise tools exist (SAP IBP, Oracle SCM, o9) but none in our price band or timelines. The mid-market LATAM band is effectively open.
Scanned venture-signal/2026-03-27-report.html and index.html. Catalogued patterns: A1 through A6 (commercial) and B1 through B4 (ops intelligence: procurement, maintenance, SKU dashboard, after-sales).
No Planner Co-Pilot / production planning pattern catalogued. If La Cazadora proceeds to proposal, add Track B, Production Planning & Plant Visibility. Until then, leave as "candidate pattern, n=1, under validation."
Scanned docs/client-painpoint-analysis.html. Production planning / scheduling / plant-sales visibility is not listed as a cross-client pain. MAGG capacity and Eurostar PM are the closest adjacencies, neither maps.
Draft only. Do not promote into module-registry.md until Call 2 answers the scope questions.
Ranked by decision impact. Top 5 must get answers before pricing.
| # | Question | Why it matters | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | How many orders per day flow through the planner? | Drives volume side of pricing. | Daniel |
| 2 | How many schedule re-plans per day (not per week)? | Distinguishes ETA scope from full regen scope. | Daniel |
| 3 | Does Microsoft GP expose an API? Read or read/write? | Determines whether ERP write-back is in MVP. | Brandon |
| 4 | What does Pulsar expose via API (availability, piece counts, both)? | Drives state-driven input design. | Brandon |
| 5 | Would sales use our UI, or does ETA write back into GP? | Surface decision drives effort. | Daniel |
| 6 | What is 1 point of OEE worth in MXN/month? | ROI handle. | Daniel or Ruco |
| 7 | Cost of a missed delivery date today (churn, penalty)? | ROI handle. | Ruco |
| 8 | Who reviews schedule proposals (single planner or team)? | Routing design. | Daniel |
| 9 | Are machine rules partially captured by Brandon, or all in planner's head? | Build effort for rule migration. | Brandon |
| 10 | Any second plant in scope ever (Contera-style)? | Phase 2 expansion. | Ruco |
Non-negotiable before sending anything: request the cotizador Excel + planning sabana under NDA, customer data anonymized.
Execute this plan:
/pricing-workflow la-cazadora. If either unresolved, Call 3.Running this analysis by hand surfaced a clean template for a repeatable skill. If we build /validate-opportunity [client], it should enforce these sections in this order:
docs/icp.md)product/architecture-spec.md). The highest-value step.clients/*/call-notes.md)docs/competitors/)Two novel findings worth encoding in the skill:
/cross-check idea (call-notes vs proposal, PASS / GAP table) is a sibling skill. Both belong in the same post-discovery toolkit.Skill build estimate: 1.5 to 2 hours. T2. No new infra.