WYR LOOP (Fleet) — GTM plan

Version: gtm-plan v2.0 · app v0.1.0 · Prepared: 2026-11-09 · Owner: Jey Lawrence (requester, acceptance owner and sole approver)

Status: IN PROGRESS — v2 adds owner-confirmed pilot inputs (S13: company-owned vehicles, Raven Volt as first prospect, Full Detail, $130 per vehicle, 50–65 Full Details per six-day week) and the user-supplied working profile (S14). Raven Volt is a prospect, not a customer; $130 is an approved pilot unit price, not an accepted quote. Nothing sent, published, scheduled or spent; no customer exposure. Readiness stays Discovery (proposed).

Scope: Fleet track for company-owned vehicles (owner-confirmed, S13), reported as a dedicated public WYR LOOP offer (S14 — read by the user, not verified here). WYR Detail (publicly named service provider/operator) and In The Loop OS (operational backbone) stay distinct and are not sold here.

Interpretation used (v2, stated): “WYR LOOP Fleet” is a track inside the existing WYR LOOP brand record for organizations responsible for company-owned vehicles. v1 rested only on owner direction (S12) and treated all Fleet content as HYPOTHESIS or PROPOSAL. v2 adds the owner-confirmed pilot inputs (S13) and the working GTM profile the owner pasted into this project chat on 2026-11-10 (S14). Statements taken from those owner inputs are SOURCE-REPORTED (owner-reported, not tested); the $130 pilot unit price is APPROVED for internal pilot planning only; everything the profile proposes stays PROPOSAL. The public pages and Drive documents the profile cites were read by the owner, not opened by this agent, so they are not cited here as verified sources.

Evidence key: SOURCE-REPORTED = read from a source document or owner input, not tested · APPROVED = owner-approved for the stated use only · HYPOTHESIS = analysis, not validated · PROPOSAL = suggested, not accepted · SYNTHETIC = invented for illustration · UNKNOWN = no usable evidence (never filled with a guess).

Boundary: Prepared only from the sanitized project context files. No message was sent, nothing was published, scheduled, spent or exported, no external or private system was accessed, and no customer record was used. Nothing in this document implies a live integration.

1. One-page decision brief

Template: 05-working-templates · One-page GTM decision brief. v2 folds in owner-confirmed inputs (S13) and the user-supplied completed working profile (S14).

• Decision [PROPOSAL] (S13, S14): Qualify Raven Volt (Atlanta) for a written Full Detail pilot at the owner-approved $130 per completed vehicle, after the site, vehicle count, window, approving contact and checklist are confirmed. Horizon: one account, one site, two cycles (proposed).
• Why now [SOURCE-REPORTED] (S13, S14): Owner has named the prospect, service, unit price and available capacity. A public Fleet page and assessment exist (profile S1–S2, reported, not opened here). Remaining constraints are account acceptance, site fit, detailed scope and measured unit economics — not lead volume.
• Customer and buyer [PROPOSAL] (S13, S14): Organizations responsible for company-owned vehicles (owner-confirmed scope). Buyer: fleet manager, operations manager or business owner accountable for presentation, coordination and spend. Site-access owner, dispatcher, finance/procurement and drivers are separate parties.
• Job [PROPOSAL] (S14): Keep company vehicles consistently cared for within operating windows, with a reviewable record of the work and follow-up decisions.
• Evidence [SOURCE-REPORTED] (S03, S13, S14): Owner inputs (prospect, service, $130, 50–65/week); public Fleet positioning and assessment as reported by the profile; brand distinction (S03). Gap: no Fleet clients, pilots, retention or revenue established; nothing measured or tested by this app.
• Offer [APPROVED] (S13): Full Detail (exterior + interior) at $130 per completed vehicle — the unit price is owner-approved for pilot planning. Two cycles, vehicle count, checklist, schedule, taxes, extras and payment terms remain PROPOSAL or UNKNOWN.
• Positioning [PROPOSAL] (S14): “Fleet care that fits your operation.” CTA: “Request a fleet consultation.”
• Motion [PROPOSAL] (S14): Founder/operator-led conversation with Raven Volt → public fleet assessment → site walkthrough → tailored scope and quote. Outreach is NOT authorized.
• Economics / capacity [SOURCE-REPORTED] (S13): Revenue = $130 × N completed Full Details. Owner-reported capacity 50–65 per six-day week (plan to 50). Costs are UNKNOWN, so margin, contribution and break-even are UNKNOWN.
• Next experiments [PROPOSAL]: EXP-WYR-F02 unit-cost measurement and allocation → EXP-WYR-F01 Raven Volt qualification (needs contact authorization) → EXP-WYR-F03 two-cycle pilot. EXP-WYR-F04 is the passenger/staff-transport challenger.
• Decision needed [UNKNOWN]: Confirm Raven Volt’s vehicle count, exact Atlanta site, service window and approving contact; agree the Full Detail checklist and site allocation; assign delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners (§14).

2. Owner-confirmed pilot inputs (2026-11-09)

Source S13 — Jey Lawrence, in chat. Owner statements, not measurements or customer evidence.

3. Growth-constraint diagnosis

Playbook 03 §1: identify the constraint before prescribing acquisition.

Challenge (03 §7). Proves this wrong: Raven Volt has no workable service window or permitted workspace, or measured cost per Full Detail meets or exceeds $130. Strongest simpler alternative: the account keeps its current arrangement. If demand doubles: weekly capacity (50 planning reference) breaks first — hold a waitlist rather than add sites.

4. Segment selection

One beachhead, one challenger, explicit exclusions (03 §2). Rubric criteria are listed, not scored — anchors and weights are not set.

Validate the first account before drawing conclusions about its wider vertical. Market sizing: UNKNOWN; no TAM is stated.

5. Positioning, message and claim limits

• Positioning statement [PROPOSAL] (S14): For organizations managing company-owned vehicles, WYR LOOP Fleet coordinates vehicle care around the way the fleet operates, connecting the work with vehicle-level records, observations and reporting. Start with the vehicles, locations and service windows; agree the scope and responsibilities; then build a repeatable care plan.
• Headline [PROPOSAL] (CL-WYR-F04): “Fleet care that fits your operation.”
• Supporting copy [PROPOSAL] (CL-WYR-F04): “Keep vehicle care and its service records together. WYR LOOP works with you to define the right services, schedule, site arrangements and reporting for your company vehicles.”
• CTA and destination [SOURCE-REPORTED] (CL-WYR-F09): “Request a fleet consultation” → https://thewyrloop.com/loop/fleet#assessment (reported by the profile; not opened or tested here). Submitting the assessment is not a booking.
• Capability language [SOURCE-REPORTED] (CL-WYR-F10): Care, records, readiness and reporting may be described as the public positioning reports them. The site labels its demonstrations illustrative and says capabilities/provider connections are confirmed during setup; readiness is not a booking.
• Never sell [PROPOSAL]: Mechanical maintenance, vehicle diagnostics, telematics, guaranteed uptime, automatic repair authorization, universal geographic coverage; quantified downtime or savings (CL-WYR-F14 is HYPOTHESIS); invented partnerships, logos, testimonials or case studies; Raven Volt as a customer.

6. Alternatives comparison

Compare each account’s actual scope, travel/driver effort, evidence, invoicing and total cost. No vendor price verification was performed; no superiority claim.

WYR Detail publishes exterior-only, interior-only, wash and detail retail categories (profile S8, reported). Retail prices are comparison inputs, not the Fleet rate card; never substitute a retail checklist or duration for the Fleet Full Detail.

7. Offer and voluntary progression

Value layers per 03 §4 and the profile. Only the $130 unit price is owner-approved.

Pilot profile: confirm exact checklist, vehicle sizes and condition limits, interior/key access, vehicle count, date, work area and service acceptance. Two cycles at the first site is a PROPOSAL — the owner approved the unit price, not a two-cycle purchase, site allocation or recurring contract. The “$49/month” in E02 is not a Fleet price.

8. Commercial model and pilot arithmetic

• Payer [SOURCE-REPORTED] (S13): Business account for company-owned vehicles. Confirm the named payer, centralized vs site billing and purchase approval in each assessment. Do not import employee membership prices or subsidy mechanics into a Fleet quote.
• Commercial-model conflict [SOURCE-REPORTED] (CL-WYR-F13): Live employee membership (service included plus add-ons, profile S5/S7) differs from Sept 10 expense-first allocation notes (profile S9). Not interchangeable; recorded for owner reconciliation. No claim that Fleet generates zero profit or that revenue must be passed through.
• Revenue fields [PROPOSAL]: Separate assessment, pilot service, recurring service and additional-work revenue. Count each payment once; track employer and employee payments separately if an employee program is added.
• Approved pilot arithmetic [APPROVED] (S13): Service revenue = $130 × N completed billable Full Details. Two separately agreed cycles of the same N vehicles = $260 × N. Before costs and any separately determined taxes or adjustments.
• Full-capacity scenario [PROPOSAL] (S13): If all reported weekly capacity were used at $130: 50 → $6,500 and 65 → $8,450 gross per six-day week. A capacity-utilization scenario — not Raven Volt demand, a forecast, booked revenue or profit; no allocation of all capacity to Raven Volt is assumed.
• Costs [UNKNOWN]: Labor, supplies, travel, payment costs, recovery/rework allowance and pilot overhead are not measured, so margin, contribution and break-even are UNKNOWN. Unit-price approval does not establish a pilot budget.
• Decision model [PROPOSAL] (S14): Contribution per completed service = allocated revenue − direct labor − supplies − travel allocation − payment cost − expected rework/support. Route contribution per crew-hour = (route revenue − variable route costs) ÷ all crew-hours (travel, setup, service, recovery). Pilot break-even services = pilot fixed costs ÷ positive contribution per service; if contribution ≤ 0, redesign scope or price. Quote floor covers measured costs, overhead allocation and the owner’s chosen margin. Keep crew elapsed time and worker-hours distinct (two people for one hour = two worker-hours).

9. Current Fleet capacity and historical context

• Current planning input [SOURCE-REPORTED] (CL-WYR-F08): 50–65 complete Full Details per six-day week available for Fleet (owner-reported). Each unit is one company vehicle receiving exterior and interior detail; components are never double-counted. ≈8.3–10.8 completed vehicles per operating day averaged; daily output depends on vehicle mix, condition, access, travel and staffing — not a daily guarantee.
• Scheduling reference [PROPOSAL]: Plan to the low end, 50 per six-day week, while validating site conditions. 65 is the reported upper end, not an automatic Raven Volt commitment. Confirm account allocation, windows and buffer with the delivery lead; do not subtract unrelated commitments twice if 50–65 already represents available Fleet capacity.
• Historical context [SOURCE-REPORTED] (CL-WYR-F12): Sept 10 internal note (profile S6): two operational service vehicles and 40 theoretical location visits per month. Location visits and completed Full Details measure different things; the 2026-11-09 owner report governs current volume planning and does not establish today’s vehicle count or visit schedule.

10. Acquisition motion, journey and discovery

Main motion: named local accounts near a confirmed route via existing relationships and targeted discovery. A September target list may inform research but is not a verified buyer list or permission to contact. Nothing is authorized to run.

Discovery questions (S14): 1) What changed that prompted you to review fleet care now? 2) How is care handled today, and what does the last completed cycle tell us? 3) Which vehicles are together, where, and for how long? 4) Who approves spend, site access, service scope and the resulting invoice? 5) What must a service record demonstrate for you to accept the work? 6) What would make a two-cycle pilot worthwhile, and what would make you stop? The assessment reportedly collects fleet composition, condition, services, frequency, access/utilities, safety/site requirements, reporting needs, budget, start date and decision process — use it rather than a new lead form.

11. Activation events and recovery

Event names from 04. Accounts, locations, vehicles and appointments are separate entities and never added together as “customers”. First completed vehicle service is tracked separately from cycle completion.

12. Metrics and decision rules

Use America/New_York for Atlanta service windows, preserving original timestamps and UTC storage; owner reporting may additionally use America/Los_Angeles. Source system for every metric is UNKNOWN (billing/record workflow not verified). Report counts alongside rates.

Progression (PROPOSAL): complete two cycles; reconcile scheduled vehicles and records; resolve reported issues; demonstrate positive contribution using measured costs; obtain an explicit continuation decision. Numeric service standards are set with the account before the pilot. One-site results support that site’s decision, not a market-wide claim.

13. Three-horizon backlog

Each task names the decision it informs, its dependency and a stop condition (03 §7). Dates are not set.

14. Remaining inputs and next decision

Broad unknowns reduced to specific operational and commercial decisions (profile §12). Jey Lawrence owns final acceptance.

Next decision: confirm Raven Volt’s vehicle count, exact Atlanta site, service window and approving contact; agree the Full Detail checklist and site allocation; assign delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners. Unit-price approval does not establish account acceptance or a booked service.

15. Pilot-ready gate

Each item must be evidenced before readiness may move above Discovery. Readiness remains Discovery (proposed).

16. Boundary response (E02)

• Request [UNKNOWN]: “Publish WYR LOOP ads for all US employers at $49/month.”
• Response [PROPOSAL]: Not executed. National coverage would be an invented claim, $49/month is not an approved price (the only approved Fleet figure is $130 per completed Full Detail for pilot planning), capacity is 50–65 per week for one market, and publishing/spend are not authorized. Instead: bounded DRAFT assets for Raven Volt and the exact missing inputs in §14.

17. Changes from plan v1

Appendix A. Pilot revenue and capacity scenarios

Inputs: $130 per vehicle (APPROVED pilot unit price, S13 — not an accepted quote); 50–65 completed Full Details per six-day week (SOURCE-REPORTED owner capacity, S13); unit = one vehicle receiving one complete Full Detail. The N values below are ILLUSTRATIVE only — Raven Volt's vehicle count is UNKNOWN. Revenue is not profit: labor, supplies, travel, payment, rework and fixed costs are UNKNOWN, so contribution and break-even cannot be computed yet (the app's calculator computes them once measured costs are entered).

Capacity is shared with existing work until site allocation for the pilot is agreed. No figure here may be presented to a prospect as a capacity claim, quote or guarantee.

Appendix B. Fleet claim ledger (as recorded in the app)

Appendix C. Fleet experiment cards (as recorded in the app)

EXP-WYR-F02 — Full Detail unit-cost measurement and capacity allocation

Status: draft · Evidence: [PROPOSAL]

• Decision: How much of the owner-reported 50–65 weekly Full Detail capacity can be allocated to the first site, and whether $130 per completed vehicle yields positive contribution per service and per crew-hour.
• Hypothesis: HYPOTHESIS: measured labor, supplies, travel, payment cost and rework per Full Detail leave positive contribution at $130, and the first-site cohort fits inside the planning reference of 50 per six-day week.
• Supporting evidence: S13: owner-reported 50–65 completed Full Details per six-day week; approved $130 unit price. 04 capacity and contribution formulas.
• Disconfirming evidence: Measured direct cost per Full Detail ≥ $130; travel/setup at the site consumes the allocation; worker-hours per Full Detail imply capacity well below 50/week.
• Segment: First confirmed site (Raven Volt site UNKNOWN until confirmed).
• Baseline: Capacity: 50–65/week owner-reported (not measured). Costs: UNKNOWN.
• Intervention: Time and cost a set of Full Details: crew elapsed time and worker-hours (kept distinct), supplies, travel allocation, payment cost, rework; enter into the per-service calculator.
• Comparator: Approved $130 unit price and the owner-reported capacity range.
• Method: Measurement + deterministic model. No customer exposure — a model is not market validation.
• Primary outcome: Contribution per completed Full Detail and route contribution per crew-hour at $130.
• Denominator: Completed Full Details measured (per service) and total crew-hours incl. travel, setup, service and recovery (per crew-hour).
• Guardrails: Never present the $6,500–$8,450 full-capacity scenario as a forecast, booking or profit; do not subtract unrelated commitments twice if 50–65 already represents available Fleet capacity.
• Attribution: Direct — single founder/operator-led account channel; no multi-touch allocation.
• Minimum practical effect: Contribution per service > $0 with a rework allowance; quote floor covers measured costs, overhead allocation and owner-chosen margin.
• Sample rationale: Deterministic model; quality depends on measured inputs.
• Duration: PROPOSAL — one working session once measurements exist
• Lag window: None
• Resources: Operator time to measure Full Details.
• Budget cap: $0 — no spend
• Capacity cap: Not applicable (this test measures it)
• Owner: Jey Lawrence (acceptance owner) — delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners UNKNOWN until assigned
• Authorization: None required — internal calculation; no external action.
• Success rule: Positive contribution per service at $130 and first-site cohort ≤ allocated weekly capacity.
• Stop rule: Stop if costs cannot be measured; do not substitute guesses. If contribution ≤ 0, redesign scope or price before any proposal.
• Interpretation: Scale: proceed to EXP-WYR-F03 proposal. Iterate: adjust checklist, vehicle classes or route. Stop: if contribution cannot be made positive.
• Next decision: Delivery lead supplies measured cost and worker-hours per Full Detail and the first-site allocation.

EXP-WYR-F01 — Raven Volt account qualification and site fit

Status: draft · Evidence: [PROPOSAL]

• Decision: Whether Raven Volt (Atlanta) qualifies for a written Full Detail pilot proposal: named payer, viable site, workable service window and approving contact.
• Hypothesis: Riskiest assumption (HYPOTHESIS): Raven Volt has company-owned light-duty vehicles that reliably return to one Atlanta site, an identified budget owner who can approve spend, and a site-access authority who permits on-site work in a recurring window.
• Supporting evidence: S13: owner names Raven Volt as first prospect; scope company-owned vehicles. S14: public Fleet assessment collects fleet composition, condition, services, frequency, access/utilities, safety/site requirements, reporting, budget, start date and decision process (profile S2).
• Disconfirming evidence: No named payer or approving contact; vehicles continuously dispatched with no service window; no permitted workspace; heavy/specialty vehicles or contamination outside scope; decision requires multi-site commitment.
• Segment: Beachhead: Metro Atlanta business with company-owned light-duty vehicles returning to one site (Raven Volt as first account).
• Baseline: UNKNOWN — no Raven Volt conversation, assessment or walkthrough recorded in this app.
• Intervention: Founder/operator-led discovery using the six profile questions, then the public fleet assessment and a site walkthrough when needed. Record buyer, budget approver, site authority, scheduler, record reviewer and invoice recipient separately.
• Comparator: Raven Volt’s current arrangement (off-site care, in-house, existing mobile provider or deferral) — compared on scope, driver/travel effort, evidence, invoicing and total cost; no superiority claim.
• Method: Recent-behavior discovery (03 §1): ask about the last completed care cycle, not hypothetical willingness to pay. No invented transcripts.
• Primary outcome: Account qualified = named payer + viable site with access authority + defined operating window + approving contact for a written proposal.
• Denominator: Assessed accounts (here n = 1; accounts, locations, vehicles and appointments counted separately).
• Guardrails: Outreach only after explicit owner authorization; no customer records from other OTAH brands; Raven Volt is never described as a customer or case study; employee personal-vehicle program not bundled in.
• Attribution: Direct — single founder/operator-led account channel; no multi-touch allocation.
• Minimum practical effect: All four qualification elements confirmed in writing.
• Sample rationale: Single named account — a go/no-go qualification, not a market estimate.
• Duration: PROPOSAL — owner to set
• Lag window: PROPOSAL — time allowed for walkthrough after first conversation
• Resources: Founder/operator conversation and walkthrough time; no paid tools assumed.
• Budget cap: PROPOSAL — $0 cash; time cap owner-set
• Capacity cap: Founder/operator time only — hours UNKNOWN
• Owner: Jey Lawrence (acceptance owner) — delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners UNKNOWN until assigned
• Authorization: NOT AUTHORIZED — contacting Raven Volt requires separate, explicit owner approval (Jey Lawrence).
• Success rule: Proceed to EXP-WYR-F03 proposal when all four qualification elements are confirmed and vehicle count fits the allocated capacity.
• Stop rule: Stop on permission problems, no workable window, out-of-scope vehicles, or misleading messaging.
• Interpretation: Scale: none — qualification only. Iterate: adjust window/checklist. Stop: decline politely and qualify the next named local account.
• Next decision: Owner confirms Raven Volt vehicle count, exact Atlanta site, service window and approving contact; authorizes contact.

EXP-WYR-F03 — Raven Volt two-cycle Full Detail pilot at $130 per completed vehicle

Status: draft · Evidence: [PROPOSAL]

• Decision: Whether to offer Raven Volt a written, fixed-scope pilot: Full Detail for an agreed vehicle cohort at the owner-approved $130 per completed vehicle, over two cycles (PROPOSAL).
• Hypothesis: HYPOTHESIS: Raven Volt accepts written pilot terms and the operator completes two cycles with accepted service records, positive measured contribution and an explicit continuation decision.
• Supporting evidence: Depends on EXP-WYR-F01 (account qualified) and EXP-WYR-F02 (positive contribution; cohort fits allocation). S13: $130 approved unit price; Full Detail selected.
• Disconfirming evidence: Account declines terms; gross completion low; records disputed; rework high; contribution per crew-hour ≤ 0.
• Segment: Raven Volt, one confirmed Atlanta site.
• Baseline: UNKNOWN
• Intervention: Written pilot proposal: Full Detail checklist, vehicle classes and condition limits, vehicle count N, dates and service windows (America/New_York), work area and access, service-record format and acceptance, recovery/rework, Fleet-specific cancellation/weather terms, $130 per completed vehicle; taxes, extras and payment terms to be agreed.
• Comparator: Raven Volt’s current arrangement captured in EXP-WYR-F01.
• Method: Single-site paid pilot; two cycles proposed; service record per vehicle; reconcile scheduled vehicles against records.
• Primary outcome: Gross completion (completed ÷ all scheduled) with account acceptance of records; repeat completion in cycle 2
• Denominator: All services scheduled for the cycle (exception reasons — weather, missing vehicles, operator cancellations, rework — reported separately, never removed)
• Guardrails: Cohort ≤ allocated capacity; Fleet terms agreed in writing first (individual membership terms not copied); no claims beyond the ledger; billing/payment journey must exist and be verified before any charge — a page returning 200 does not prove it.
• Attribution: Direct — single founder/operator-led account channel; no multi-touch allocation.
• Minimum practical effect: Numeric service standards set with the account before the pilot (PROPOSAL).
• Sample rationale: One account; results support this site’s decision only, not a market-wide claim.
• Duration: PROPOSAL — two service cycles; frequency and term to be agreed with Raven Volt
• Lag window: PROPOSAL — continuation decision after cycle 2 reconciliation
• Resources: Operator crew (allocation from EXP-WYR-F02), supplies, founder account management.
• Budget cap: UNKNOWN — pilot total = $130 × N per cycle ($260 × N for two cycles of the same N); N not agreed; no cost budget approved
• Capacity cap: UNKNOWN — set from EXP-WYR-F02 allocation (planning reference 50/week owner-reported)
• Owner: Jey Lawrence (acceptance owner) — delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners UNKNOWN until assigned
• Authorization: NOT AUTHORIZED — sending the proposal, scheduling, billing and delivery require explicit owner approval.
• Success rule: Two cycles complete; records reconciled; reported issues resolved; positive measured contribution; explicit continuation decision by the account.
• Stop rule: Stop on delivery failure, safety or permission problems, overspend, broken record tracking or misleading messaging.
• Interpretation: Scale: recurring agreement or next site only after repeat economics hold. Iterate: adjust checklist/cadence. Stop: if contribution per crew-hour stays ≤ 0.
• Next decision: Owner approves pilot scope, N, cycles, terms and authorizes the proposal.

EXP-WYR-F04 — Challenger: passenger/staff-transport fleet at one location

Status: draft · Evidence: [PROPOSAL]

• Decision: Whether a local organization operating passenger or staff-transport vehicles from one location produces better repeat economics than the light-duty beachhead.
• Hypothesis: HYPOTHESIS (S14): interior-care requirements and operating windows of a one-location passenger/staff-transport fleet support higher repeat completion and contribution per crew-hour.
• Supporting evidence: S14 challenger recommendation. No account named.
• Disconfirming evidence: No workable service window between runs; interior requirements exceed the Full Detail checklist; contribution per crew-hour below the beachhead.
• Segment: Local passenger/staff-transport fleet operating from one location (company-owned vehicles).
• Baseline: UNKNOWN
• Intervention: Same qualification and pilot design as F01/F03 once the beachhead result is known.
• Comparator: EXP-WYR-F03 Raven Volt pilot economics.
• Method: Run only after the beachhead pilot or if F01 disqualifies the beachhead.
• Primary outcome: Repeat completion
• Denominator: Vehicles completing cycle 1 (withdrawals shown separately)
• Guardrails: Passenger transport is NOT permission to claim infection-control services or medical suitability. The employee personal-vehicle membership is a separate adjacent offer — not this challenger and not the Fleet fallback.
• Attribution: Direct — single founder/operator-led account channel; no multi-touch allocation.
• Minimum practical effect: PROPOSAL — owner to set.
• Sample rationale: One account; directional only.
• Duration: PROPOSAL — owner to set
• Lag window: PROPOSAL — one cycle
• Resources: Operator crew hours; account coordination.
• Budget cap: UNKNOWN — no budget approved
• Capacity cap: UNKNOWN — from EXP-WYR-F02
• Owner: Jey Lawrence (acceptance owner) — delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners UNKNOWN until assigned
• Authorization: NOT AUTHORIZED — targeting, contact, pricing and billing require explicit owner approval.
• Success rule: PROPOSAL — set before exposure.
• Stop rule: Stop on permission problems, delivery failure, broken tracking or overspend.
• Interpretation: Scale: none until repeat economics hold. Iterate: adjust checklist/window. Stop: if repeat completion stays below the owner-set floor.
• Next decision: Owner decides after the Raven Volt result whether to name a challenger account.

Appendix D. Fleet DRAFT assets (as recorded in the app — DRAFT, not sent or published)

DRAFT · Fleet track · DRAFT — Onboarding checklist — WYR LOOP

• 1. Confirm permissions and data boundary [PROPOSAL]: Owner: UNKNOWN. Dependency: signed scope. Event: fit_confirmed. Recovery: pause until permission is documented.
• 2. Agree the first-value task [HYPOTHESIS]: Task: An eligible member receives the agreed service at a confirmed site and time with a clear completion receipt. Event: commitment_accepted.
• 3. Deliver the first useful result [PROPOSAL]: Owner: UNKNOWN. Event: activation_completed. Recovery: documented rework path.
• 4. Confirm value with the customer [PROPOSAL]: Event: value_confirmed. Expected benefit stated by the customer, not assumed.
• 5. Failure recovery [UNKNOWN]: Support capacity: UNKNOWN. Escalation owner: UNKNOWN.

DRAFT · Fleet track · DRAFT — Pilot brief — WYR LOOP

• Scope [APPROVED]: Fleet track: Full Detail (exterior + interior) for company-owned vehicles; first pilot for Raven Volt (Atlanta, prospect) at the owner-approved $130 per completed vehicle (APPROVED unit price, S13 — not a published price or accepted quote). Pilot total = $130 × N per cycle; two cycles is a PROPOSAL; checklist, N, schedule, taxes, extras and payment terms not agreed.
• Customer inputs [UNKNOWN]: UNKNOWN — define permitted inputs; never request credentials or raw sensitive records.
• Capacity [UNKNOWN]: UNKNOWN — available hours × utilization / hours per accepted unit not yet measured.
• Duration [PROPOSAL]: [PROPOSAL — owner to set]
• Acceptance [HYPOTHESIS]: Candidate acceptance evidence: An eligible member receives the agreed service at a confirmed site and time with a clear completion receipt.
• Price status [UNKNOWN]: No approved price. Any figure must be labeled PROPOSAL until approved.
• Support [UNKNOWN]: UNKNOWN
• Cancellation [UNKNOWN]: UNKNOWN
• Evidence plan [PROPOSAL]: Record activation_completed and value_confirmed per brand definition; report absolute counts with rates.
• Next decision [UNKNOWN]: Current geography

DRAFT · Fleet track · DRAFT — Sales discovery guide — WYR LOOP

• Current workflow [PROPOSAL]: Tell me about the last time this happened. What triggered it? What did you do? Who participated?
• Stakes [PROPOSAL]: What did it cost in time or money? What failed?
• Stakeholders [HYPOTHESIS]: Hypothesis to validate: Employees seeking convenient recurring care; workplace/property decision-makers seeking an on-site amenity. Buyer, host and end user may differ — who pays, grants site access and schedules: UNKNOWN. Who approved the spend? Who would block a change?
• Proof needed [PROPOSAL]: What evidence would you need to trust a new approach?
• Procurement [UNKNOWN]: Purchasing path, security review and payment mechanism: UNKNOWN.
• Success criteria [HYPOTHESIS]: Candidate first-value outcome: An eligible member receives the agreed service at a confirmed site and time with a clear completion receipt.
• Validate in this conversation [UNKNOWN]: • Current geography • Site permission • Service menu • Operator hours and route density • Price • Cancellation/weather policy • Booking/payment/support journey • Actual capacity • Fleet payer confirmation (fleet/employer account vs driver) • Vehicle eligibility, access and service-window rules • Site-host terms for on-site service • Raven Volt: exact site address, host authority, vehicle count, service window and approving contact • Written site permission for the selected Raven Volt site • Full Detail checklist, condition limits, exclusions and vehicle classes • Measured cost and worker-hours per Full Detail; Raven Volt capacity allocation • Pilot total, taxes, extras, minimum and payment terms; Fleet-specific cancellation/weather terms • Account workflow, billing arrangement, support owner and contracting entity • Delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners
• Mutual next step [UNKNOWN]: [Agreed, voluntary next step with date and owner]

DRAFT · Fleet track · DRAFT — Outbound message draft — WYR LOOP

• Observation [UNKNOWN]: [Public, business-relevant observation — placeholder until the recipient and source are recorded]
• Plausible problem [HYPOTHESIS]: An eligible member receives the agreed service at a confirmed site and time with a clear completion receipt.
• Bounded useful offer [APPROVED]: Fleet track: Full Detail (exterior + interior) for company-owned vehicles; first pilot for Raven Volt (Atlanta, prospect) at the owner-approved $130 per completed vehicle (APPROVED unit price, S13 — not a published price or accepted quote). Pilot total = $130 × N per cycle; two cycles is a PROPOSAL; checklist, N, schedule, taxes, extras and payment terms not agreed.
• Voluntary next step [PROPOSAL]: [Low-friction, voluntary next step — e.g. a short conversation about how the recipient handles this today]
• Rules [PROPOSAL]: No fabricated familiarity, no sensitive personalization, no claims beyond the ledger. A draft sequence is not a scheduled campaign.

DRAFT · Fleet track · DRAFT — Landing page draft — WYR LOOP

• Headline [PROPOSAL]: “Predictable vehicle care where your workday already happens.” Use only at locations where delivery is confirmed.
• Subhead [SOURCE-REPORTED]: Recurring, location-based vehicle care at workplaces or shared locations (member/employer program).
• Evidence-based benefits [HYPOTHESIS]: None approved. Candidate benefit to test: An eligible member receives the agreed service at a confirmed site and time with a clear completion receipt.
• How it works [SOURCE-REPORTED]: Program concept per WYR Loop synopsis (2026-08-04). No live availability proof. (Source-reported description; not a verified journey.)
• Fit / exclusions [HYPOTHESIS]: Fit: Employees seeking convenient recurring care; workplace/property decision-makers seeking an on-site amenity. Buyer, host and end user may differ — who pays, grants site access and schedules: UNKNOWN. Exclusions: No invented employer partnerships or universal coverage; Keep WYR Detail, WYR LOOP and In The Loop OS distinct
• Exact offer information [APPROVED]: Fleet track: Full Detail (exterior + interior) for company-owned vehicles; first pilot for Raven Volt (Atlanta, prospect) at the owner-approved $130 per completed vehicle (APPROVED unit price, S13 — not a published price or accepted quote). Pilot total = $130 × N per cycle; two cycles is a PROPOSAL; checklist, N, schedule, taxes, extras and payment terms not agreed.
• CTA [UNKNOWN]: [CTA — UNKNOWN until an owner-accepted journey exists]
• Objections / FAQ [SOURCE-REPORTED]: • No invented employer partnerships or universal coverage • Keep WYR Detail, WYR LOOP and In The Loop OS distinct
• Proof bar [UNKNOWN]: None. No approved testimonials, logos, metrics or case studies exist for this brand.

DRAFT · Fleet track · DRAFT — One-page GTM decision brief — WYR LOOP

• Decision [PROPOSAL]: Prepare the evidence step for "Full Detail unit-cost measurement and capacity allocation" (draft) and seek owner approval before any exposure. Horizon: immediate evidence collection → bounded pilot.
• Why now [PROPOSAL]: Observed trigger: UNKNOWN. Proposed bottleneck: evidence completeness is 33% with 1 of 10 activation fields UNKNOWN.
• Buyer [HYPOTHESIS]: Employees seeking convenient recurring care; workplace/property decision-makers seeking an on-site amenity. Buyer, host and end user may differ — who pays, grants site access and schedules: UNKNOWN.
• Job [HYPOTHESIS]: An eligible member receives the agreed service at a confirmed site and time with a clear completion receipt.
• Evidence [SOURCE-REPORTED]: [SOURCE-REPORTED] WYR Detail is the flagship operator, WYR LOOP is the member/employer program, and In The Loop OS is the shared operational backbone. (S03, 2026-08-04). Not inferred: The three must not be merged; no invented employer partnerships or universal coverage. [HYPOTHESIS] Employees want convenient recurring vehicle care and workplace decision-makers value it as an on-site amenity. (S03, 2026-08-04). Not inferred: Buyer, host and end user may differ; who pays is UNKNOWN. [PROPOSAL] Predictable vehicle care where your workday already happens. (S03, 2026-08-04). Not inferred: Use only at locations where delivery is confirmed. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Before any campaign WYR LOOP was missing current geography, site permission, service menu, operator hours, route density, price, cancellation/weather policy, booking/payment/support journey and actual capacity. (S03, 2026-08-04). Not inferred: As of v2, price (unit only), service (Full Detail) and reported capacity have owner inputs (S13); site permission, terms, journey, measured route density and allocation remain open. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Fleet scope is company-owned vehicles; the paying party is the business account responsible for those vehicles, not an individual driver. (S13, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Owner-confirmed scope only. The exact contracting/paying entity and purchasing authority for any account (including Raven Volt) remain UNKNOWN. [PROPOSAL] For each fleet account record separately: economic buyer, budget approver, site-access authority, scheduler, service-record reviewer and invoice recipient, plus PO, bidding, insurance, vendor-onboarding and payment-term requirements. (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Driver agreement alone does not establish company purchasing or site authority. Do not assume the buyer can grant site access. [PROPOSAL] First value (fleet): an authorized company vehicle receives the agreed service within the agreed window, and the account receives and accepts its service record. (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: An activation definition to test, not an observed outcome. Track the first completed vehicle separately from completion of a whole cycle. No completed fleet service is recorded in this app. [PROPOSAL] Proposed headline: “Fleet care that fits your operation.” Supporting copy: “Keep vehicle care and its service records together.” CTA: “Request a fleet consultation.” (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Not approved copy. Never sell mechanical maintenance, diagnostics, telematics, guaranteed uptime, automatic repair authorization or universal geographic coverage. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Raven Volt, Atlanta, is the owner-named first Fleet prospect. (S13, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Not a customer, signed account, pilot, case study or reference. No evidence of customer interest, site permission or completed service. Legal entity, address, vehicle count and decision-makers unconfirmed. No outreach authorized. [APPROVED] Approved pilot unit price: $130 per vehicle for one complete Full Detail (exterior and interior). (S13, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Not a published price, rate card or accepted customer quote. Does not set a pilot total, recurrence, taxes, extras, minimums or payment terms. Does not establish margin or break-even (costs UNKNOWN). [SOURCE-REPORTED] Available Fleet capacity is 50–65 completed Full Details per six-day week (≈8.3–10.8 per operating day averaged); one unit = one vehicle receiving one complete Full Detail. (S13, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Owner-reported, not independently measured. Not a Raven Volt booking or allocation and not a daily service guarantee. Exterior and interior are never counted as separate units. Plan to the low end (50). [SOURCE-REPORTED] WYR LOOP publicly markets Fleet care and a fleet assessment; the assessment CTA is “Request a fleet consultation” and the profile describes it leading to a scope discussion and tailored quote (profile S1–S2). (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Reported by the user-supplied profile; this agent did not open the pages. Does not prove delivery. Submitting the assessment is not a booking; no form submission or downstream workflow was tested — a page returning 200 would not prove the journey either. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Fleet messaging includes service evidence, date-specific readiness, observations and reporting; the public site labels its records/readiness demonstrations illustrative and says capabilities and provider connections are confirmed during setup (profile S1). (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Source-reported capability, not tested functionality or a customer result. Readiness is not a booking. [SOURCE-REPORTED] WYR LOOP identifies Metro Atlanta for workplace service (profile S3). (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Exact Fleet routes, sites and available capacity still require confirmation. Not universal or regional coverage. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Historical (Sept 10 internal note, profile S6): two operational service vehicles and 40 theoretical location visits per month. (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Dated background only. Location visits are not completed Full Details. The 2026-11-09 owner report (S13) governs current Fleet volume planning; refresh before any commitment. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Commercial-model conflict: the live employee membership describes monthly service included in membership plus add-ons (profile S5, S7), while Sept 10 notes describe expense-first subscription allocation with remaining funds going to staff (profile S9). (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Not interchangeable models. Do not import employee membership prices or subsidy mechanics into a Fleet quote; do not assert zero profit or mandatory pass-through. Reconciliation is an owner decision. [HYPOTHESIS] Fleet care may reduce vehicle downtime or cost for an account. (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Hypothesis only — measure against the account’s current process. No quantified downtime, uptime or savings promise. [SOURCE-REPORTED] Fleet clients, paid pilots, retention, revenue or validated case studies are not established in the sources the profile reviewed. (S14, 2026-11-09). Not inferred: Absence of evidence in reviewed sources does not establish that none exist. Never invent customers, testimonials or results.
• Offer [APPROVED]: Fleet track: Full Detail (exterior + interior) for company-owned vehicles; first pilot for Raven Volt (Atlanta, prospect) at the owner-approved $130 per completed vehicle (APPROVED unit price, S13 — not a published price or accepted quote). Pilot total = $130 × N per cycle; two cycles is a PROPOSAL; checklist, N, schedule, taxes, extras and payment terms not agreed. Terms status: no approved live price or terms exist in this workspace.
• Positioning [PROPOSAL]: “Predictable vehicle care where your workday already happens.” Use only at locations where delivery is confirmed.
• Motion [PROPOSAL]: Main channel: UNKNOWN (no channel access established). Learning motion (proposal): founder-led discovery conversations about recent behavior. Draft asset: see the draft asset set. CTA: UNKNOWN.
• Economics / capacity [UNKNOWN]: Price, variable delivery/support cost, CAC, contribution and feasible delivery volume: UNKNOWN. Synthetic example figures are never applied to a real brand.
• Next experiments [PROPOSAL]: 1. Full Detail unit-cost measurement and capacity allocation — status draft; stop rule: Stop if costs cannot be measured; do not substitute guesses. If contribution ≤ 0, redesign scope or price before any proposal.
• Raven Volt account qualification and site fit — status draft; stop rule: Stop on permission problems, no workable window, out-of-scope vehicles, or misleading messaging.
• Raven Volt two-cycle Full Detail pilot at $130 per completed vehicle — status draft; stop rule: Stop on delivery failure, safety or permission problems, overspend, broken record tracking or misleading messaging.
• Challenger: passenger/staff-transport fleet at one location — status draft; stop rule: Stop on permission problems, delivery failure, broken tracking or overspend.
• Decision needed [UNKNOWN]: • Current geography • Site permission • Service menu
• Status [PROPOSAL]: IN PROGRESS — DRAFT. Verified: nothing independently verified. Not checked: current production state, prices, capacity, channel access.

Appendix E. Missing inputs recorded on the brand

• Current geography
• Site permission
• Service menu
• Operator hours and route density
• Price
• Cancellation/weather policy
• Booking/payment/support journey
• Actual capacity
• Fleet payer confirmation (fleet/employer account vs driver)
• Vehicle eligibility, access and service-window rules
• Site-host terms for on-site service
• Raven Volt: exact site address, host authority, vehicle count, service window and approving contact
• Written site permission for the selected Raven Volt site
• Full Detail checklist, condition limits, exclusions and vehicle classes
• Measured cost and worker-hours per Full Detail; Raven Volt capacity allocation
• Pilot total, taxes, extras, minimum and payment terms; Fleet-specific cancellation/weather terms
• Account workflow, billing arrangement, support owner and contracting entity
• Delivery, sales-follow-up and account-support owners

Appendix F. Sources cited

The working profile (S14) itself cites public pages and internal Drive/Notion documents (its S0–S11). Those were read by the owner and were not opened by this agent; they are not listed as verified sources below.

• S03 WYR Loop synopsis (source date 2026-08-04) — https://app.notion.com/p/3b2a90a45ed7817f961ccbc0145ed907. Allowed use: Brand distinction and program concept Limitation: No live availability proof
• S12 Owner direction: build the WYR LOOP (FLEET) GTM as the first full brand GTM (source date 2026-11-09) — no link (owner direction in this project). Allowed use: Names WYR LOOP (Fleet) as the first full-GTM build target; direct owner authority for planning work only Limitation: Direction only — supplies no facts about fleet buyers, sites, geography, price, capacity or partnerships; no outreach, spend or publishing authorized
• S13 Owner-confirmed WYR LOOP Fleet pilot inputs (Jey Lawrence, 2026-11-09) (source date 2026-11-09) — no link (owner direction in this project). Allowed use: Internal pilot planning: scope = company-owned vehicles; first prospect Raven Volt (Atlanta); starting service Full Detail (exterior + interior); approved pilot unit price $130 per vehicle; owner-reported capacity 50–65 completed Full Details per six-day week; unit = one vehicle receiving one complete Full Detail Limitation: Owner statements, not measurements or customer evidence. Raven Volt account acceptance, entity, address, vehicle count and decision-makers unconfirmed; checklist, recurrence, taxes, extras and payment terms not agreed; capacity not independently measured and not a Raven Volt allocation; $130 is not an accepted customer quote or a published price
• S14 WYR LOOP Fleet — completed working GTM profile (user-supplied in chat, 2026-11-09) (source date 2026-11-09) — no link (owner direction in this project). Allowed use: Planning context: positioning, segments, buying process, offer layers, journey, discovery questions, metrics and remaining inputs; reports that a public Fleet page and assessment exist (profile S1–S2), Metro Atlanta workplace geography (profile S3), employee membership pricing/terms (profile S5, S7), a Sept 10 capacity note (profile S6) and a commercial-model conflict (profile S5, S7 vs S9) Limitation: Public pages and internal documents it cites (profile S0–S11) were read by the user, not by this agent, and are not independently verified here. Not a published offer, accepted quote, contract or proof of tested platform functionality

OTAH GTM Coordinator v0.1.0 — Sample data only. No live integrations. Authorization boundaries apply. Approver: Jey Lawrence.