---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** challenge whether the product has a defensible position given the documented competitive landscape, cost envelope, channel economics, and regulatory cost-of-entry. Adversarial review of the business case at inception is the cheapest place to find out the product won't pay for itself.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, filing feedback for any violation:

- **Cost envelope vs target retail** — The declared BOM target, channel margin assumption, and target ASP are mathematically consistent: BOM × markup × channel-margin landing at a retail price the documented target user will pay. If the math doesn't close, that's a finding.
- **Differentiation a consumer would notice** — The artifact names at least one differentiator that a target user would observe in normal use (not "better firmware quality", not "more rigorous QA") and explains why the competitor isn't already doing it. "We will be better" is not differentiation.
- **Regulatory cost-of-entry reflected** — Any regulatory framework whose certification adds meaningful unit cost or per-launch cost is reflected in the envelope: cert lab fees, ongoing surveillance, restricted-substance compliance costs, country-specific approvals. A "we'll get FCC" line item with no cost is an under-estimate.
- **Volume estimates grounded** — Volume figures cite a comparable product, a channel-capacity argument, or a primary-research signal — not a wish list. The most fragile assumption in the business case has a sensitivity note showing what happens if it's half what's claimed.
- **Channel economics** — Channel margins, return-rate assumptions, and shelf / placement fees are documented for the chosen channels. A channel with high return rates (consumer electronics) needs reserve in the envelope.
- **Time-to-market vs window** — Any market window argument cites a documented window (competitor announcement, regulatory deadline, seasonal buying pattern). "We need to be first" without a window is wishful thinking.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A BOM-to-MSRP markup that assumes single-channel direct-to-consumer when the actual plan goes through multi-tier distribution
- A "competitors don't do X" claim with no citation, when in fact they do (or did, and stopped for a reason)
- Regulatory cost left as a single line item with no actual cert-lab estimate
- Volume estimates that ignore typical year-one ramp curves and book year-one revenue as if production runs at steady-state from day one
- A channel choice incompatible with the cost envelope (mass retail margins with a premium-product BOM)
- Differentiation that's invisible at point of purchase (only the second-time user would notice, but the buying decision is made by the first-time user)
