Brain1 — SuiteCentral 2.0 Wiki

The 30/60/90 Pilot

Last updated

The 30/60/90 Pilot

A 3-month, 75K pilot of SuiteCentral 2.0 with explicit go/no-go evidence gates — preceded by a 30-day evaluation phase that decides whether to run the pilot at all.

What it is — the two phases

The adoption path is actually two sequential phases, not one. This is a refinement that emerged from the read-talking-points ingest — the earlier sources (01-executive-summary and the role briefs) jumped straight to the 90-day pilot structure without naming the precursor evaluation phase.

Phase 1: 30-day evaluation (per read-talking-points talking point #7 and read-elevator-pitch Beat 4 — confirmed across two sources):

WeekActivity
Week 1Demo review
Week 2Technical deep-dive
Week 3Pilot client selection
Week 4Decision checkpoint (go / no-go)

This phase is about deciding whether to run the 90-day pilot. No billable work starts; Squire is walking the review experience and selecting which client would be the pilot target. The week-4 decision checkpoint is the commit point for the 75K ask.

Phase 2: 90-day pilot (the original “30/60/90” structure from 01-executive-summary and the role briefs). Runs only if Phase 1’s week-4 decision is “go.” Structure below.

Post-pilot: SuiteApp.AI certification path, pilot with one client, phased rollout (per read-talking-points talking point #7).

Year-1 commercial target (per ai-governance-layer-video 03:50-04:00):

“Our roadmap shows we are production ready now. Following the pilot in months 1 to 3, we plan a commercial launch decision in month 4, scaling to 60-plus customers in year 1.”

60+ customers in year 1 is the first formally-ingested scale target in the corpus. Combined with Jonyce’s “recurring revenue potential — SaaS licensing for SuiteCentral platform” angle from read-talking-points, this makes the product’s commercial ambition explicit: SuiteCentral 2.0 is positioned as a product Squire could license to 60+ external customers in year 1 post-pilot.

Market window (per ai-governance-layer-video 04:05-04:14):

“The market window is 6 to 12 months. The technology is verified, the market is open, and Squire is positioned to capture this value.”

6-12 months is the first time-to-close claim in the corpus. It’s consistent with the “world changed last week” framing — the strategic inflection is recent, and the window to establish the governance-layer moat before competitors catch up is measured in months, not years.

75% cost reduction (per ai-governance-layer-video 03:07-03:14):

“We built MDM into the core and offer an embedded sidecar, all at a projected 75% cost reduction.”

This is the first formally-ingested cost-reduction percentage. Context: the 75% is benchmarked against the cost of buying MDM as a separate product (see mdm-central for the competitive framing) plus implementing an embedded intelligence layer separately. For a CPA firm’s client, bundling these reduces the license-plus-implementation cost by ~75% vs the traditional build-it-yourself or buy-multiple-tools approach.

Why it matters (to the adoption case)

This is the entire decision framing. The pitch is not “buy SuiteCentral 2.0” — it’s “approve a 30-day evaluation that could lead to a 90-day pilot.” That’s a smaller, more reversible decision with two off-ramps (the week-4 checkpoint of the evaluation phase, and the day-60/day-90 gates of the pilot), which lowers the political and financial risk for Squire’s CFO/CTO/COO. The slide script’s last two slides (9 and 10) frame the pilot ask; the talking-points source frames the evaluation phase that precedes it.

The Phase-2 pilot structure (per 13-pilot-30-60-90)

This is the 90-day pilot proper, which runs only after the Phase-1 evaluation’s week-4 decision checkpoint is “go.” 13-pilot-30-60-90 is the definitive source for phase activities and gate metrics.

Day 1-30: Setup and Baseline

  • Assign sponsor and owner. Two named roles on the Squire side — a sponsor (executive accountability) and an owner (operational accountability). They may be different people. This resolves the earlier open question about who leads the pilot.
  • Select pilot clients and baseline current metrics. The 5–10 clients are selected during phase 1 (not before). Current metrics are baselined so improvements can be measured against a pre-pilot reference.
  • Run preflight checks and acceptance review. Formal go/no-ready check before field-mapping deployment begins. Detail not in this source.

Day 31-60: Controlled Execution

  • Deploy field mapping and sidecar workflows. This is where the actual SuiteCentral 2.0 functionality turns on in the pilot clients’ environments.
  • Track weekly KPI pack. Weekly cadence with a defined KPI artifact. Confirms the COO brief’s “weekly operating cadence” claim from a second source and names the specific artifact (“KPI pack”).
  • Run compliance/evidence export checks. Compliance/evidence exports happen during controlled execution, not just at the end. The CTO should see evidence exports weekly, not at Day 90.

Day 61-90: Scale Decision

  • Compile pilot ROI and case studies. Finalize the economics and adoption evidence.
  • Hold go/no-go board. The formal gate meeting.
  • Approve scale only if all gates pass. All four Gate Metrics (see below) must pass.

The four Gate Metrics (per 13-pilot-30-60-90)

The pilot’s formal gate at the end of Day 61-90 has four specific pass criteria, each with a named threshold:

#MetricThreshold
1Time-to-integrate≥ 50% reduction
2Error rate≥ 70% reduction
3EconomicsTrend within approved ROI range (25%-157% 3-year)
4GovernanceEvidence package exported and reviewed

Reading the thresholds: the 50% / 70% reductions are the floor the pilot must clear, NOT the aspirational hero numbers. ai-governance-layer-video claims 15 hours → 30 seconds for field mapping (a ~1,800× reduction), but this pilot gate only requires 50% reduction. That’s unusually honest — the pitch leads with the best case and the pilot plan asks for the defensible minimum.

All four must pass. This is an AND gate, not an OR gate: the pilot does not clear if even one metric fails.

“Gate” terminology refinement: prior sources talked about “day-60 gate” and “day-90 gate” as if both were formal gates. 13-pilot-30-60-90 clarifies that the only HARD formal gate is the end-of-phase-3 go/no-go board (Day 61-90). Day 30 and Day 60 are phase transitions (Setup→Execution and Execution→Scale Decision), not pass/fail checkpoints.

The numbers

Note: the 25–157% ROI range is unusually wide. This likely reflects scenario sensitivity (best/worst case across pilot outcomes). The CFO brief notes that “scenario inputs are adjustable and transparent” — implying 04-ROI-CALCULATOR.md is an interactive parameterized tool rather than a fixed projection. Not yet ingested.

The Pilot Decision Memo — the terminal artifact (per 16-pilot-decision-memo)

Every review path (A, B, and C) terminates in the Pilot Decision Memo at /Squire-Executive-Package-v2/16-PILOT-DECISION-MEMO-STANDALONE.html. It is a copy-ready template that the executive sponsor (or the CEO reconciling all three role views) fills in to formalize the pilot decision.

“Approve a 3-month pilot for SuiteCentral 2.0 at 75K, limited to 5-10 Squire clients, with day-60 and day-90 go/no-go gates tied to measurable operating and financial outcomes.”

Three decision options

OptionActionNotes
A: Approve pilot nowProceed with full 30/60/90 plan and weekly steering cadenceThe “happy path”
B: Conditional approvalApprove after one additional technical check OR budget clarificationThe CTO-or-CFO-wants-one-more-thing path
C: DeferRevisit after market or internal constraints changeThe “not now” path — note: not “no,” just “not yet”

Option B is notable: conditional approvals are framed as requiring one additional check, not a list. The two kinds of conditional blockers are technical (CTO-flavored) or financial (CFO-flavored), with the COO implicitly on board if the pilot gets to Option B at all.

The 6-position pilot org chart (NEW)

The memo template names six distinct positions required to run the pilot:

3 Owner roles (named in the memo):

  1. Executive sponsor — ultimate accountability for the pilot’s success
  2. Technical owner — runs the technical integration work
  3. Operating owner — runs the operational/KPI tracking work

3 Sign-off roles: 4. CFO — signs off on the budget commitment 5. CTO — signs off on the technical approach 6. COO — signs off on the operational plan

The sponsor vs owner distinction from 13-pilot-30-60-90 is now fully resolved: the Executive sponsor is one specific person (typically a C-level or VP); the Technical owner and Operating owner are two other people who run the day-to-day work. The Technical Owner likely reports to the CTO and the Operating Owner to the COO. That’s 6 distinct positions total.

Three conditions of approval (in the copy-ready memo text)

  1. Weekly KPI reporting to executive sponsor
  2. Governance evidence export and review by Day 90 (this is Gate Metric #4 from 13-pilot-30-60-90 — the compliance dashboard is the tool for generating the export)
  3. Scale-up only if all gate criteria are met (this is the COO brief’s “expansion only on measurable outcome attainment” rule)

Day-90 gate criteria — resolved

The end-of-pilot go/no-go decision is gated on the four Gate Metrics above. Earlier role-brief framings (economics + adoption proof + measurable outcome attainment) were consistent with the four metrics but less specific. The four Gate Metrics are now the canonical gate criteria — they subsume and refine what the role briefs described.

Mapping role brief framings to the four Gate Metrics:

  • 10-role-brief-cfo “economics and adoption proof” → Gate Metric 3 (Economics) + Gate Metrics 1 and 2 (time-to-integrate and error rate are only measurable if real adoption is happening)
  • 12-role-brief-coo “measurable outcome attainment” → all four metrics being measurable against their thresholds
  • 11-role-brief-cto “compliance evidence export” → Gate Metric 4 (Governance)

Risk controls (per slide 8)

The pitch acknowledges and addresses pilot risks explicitly:

  • Competitive catch-up monitoring — markets evolve during the pilot
  • AI quality guardrails — the system is governed, not unsupervised
  • Multi-provider fallback — no single-vendor dependency
  • Governance and compliance evidence — auditable from day one

The decision posture (per slide 10)

“Approve the 3-month pilot with defined success gates. This keeps the decision evidence-based and reversible while preserving upside if results hold.”

Three things to notice in this language:

  1. “defined success gates” — the pilot is not open-ended; pass/fail criteria exist (presumably in 13-PILOT-30-60-90.md notebook source, not yet ingested).
  2. “evidence-based and reversible” — anti-FOMO framing; the pitch is not “you’ll miss out if you don’t.”
  3. “preserving upside if results hold” — leaves room for the bigger ARR story (the 7.4M projection from elsewhere in the notebook) without anchoring on it.

Open questions

  • What does the modeled ROI range break down into (best case / base case / worst case)? Likely in 04-ROI-CALCULATOR.md — flag for next ingest.
  • Client selection criteria: Day 1-30 includes “Select pilot clients” but the selection criteria (easy clients vs representative clients) are still unspecified.
  • Additional KPIs beyond the four Gate Metrics: the “weekly KPI pack” implies more KPIs than just the four gate metrics. Which others? Not specified.
  • Preflight checks and acceptance review: named as Day 1-30 activities but not defined in this source. Likely in 18-LIVE-DEMO-SETUP-STANDALONE or 17-PERSONAL-WALKTHROUGH-SCRIPT.
  • Sponsor vs owner distinction: Day 1-30 assigns both, but the source doesn’t say whether they are the same person or how the roles differ. Sponsor likely means executive accountability; owner likely means operational accountability.
  • Who leads the pilot approval decision? Partially resolved: the pilot has a named sponsor and owner, assigned in phase 1. The ultimate approval gate at the go/no-go board still requires all three role-brief concerns (cost / correctness / throughput) to clear — see three-role-decision-frame for the reconciliation view.

Sources

  • 01-executive-summary — claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (pilot ask, ROI range, pilot structure, risk controls, decision posture)
  • 10-role-brief-cfo — payback signal, day-90 gate criteria, second-source confirmation of $50-75K and 25-157%
  • 11-role-brief-cto — referenced for the technical-validation gating (not the pilot structure itself)
  • 12-role-brief-coo — pilot scope (5-10 clients), day-60 gate, expansion-only-on-outcome-attainment rule
  • read-talking-points — claims 10, 11 (30-day evaluation phase, post-pilot SuiteApp.AI certification path)
  • read-elevator-pitch — claim 12 (second-source confirmation of 30-day evaluation phase)
  • ai-governance-layer-video — claims 21, 23, 24, 25, 27 (75% cost reduction, ROI confirmation, pilot confirmation, year-1 60+ customer target, 6-12 month market window)
  • 13-pilot-30-60-90 — claims 1-12 (phase-by-phase activity list, four Gate Metrics with thresholds, sponsor/owner assignment, pilot client selection timing, weekly KPI pack, compliance evidence export checks during execution)
  • 04-roi-calculator — three ROI scenarios (Conservative 25%, Base 75%, Optimistic 157%), $2,495/month SaaS pricing, base-case financial impact, adjustable baseline inputs
  • 16-pilot-decision-memo — the terminal decision artifact, three decision options (A/B/C), six-position pilot org chart (Executive sponsor, Technical owner, Operating owner + CFO/CTO/COO sign-off), three conditions of approval

Graph View

11 min read

💬 Ask the full corpus →

Backlinks