Find where your model breaks
before the market does.

A written brief with five defined outputs: the single assumption your model depends on, where it actually breaks, the numbers behind it, three scenarios modeling what happens if you fix it, and a specific recommendation. Ten to fifteen pages. Three calls included at every price tier: scope confirmation before work begins, a delivery call walking through the finding, and a 30-day follow-up. Complexity determines price. The deliverable standard does not change.

The scope confirmation call is 30 minutes. Depending on the issue, I may request access to existing data: analytics, P&L by channel, CAC by cohort, retention curves, pricing architecture, or fulfillment metrics. That is data you already have. For more complex engagements, the analysis may require brief direct conversations with one or two additional stakeholders who own specific numbers in the model. Total time investment on your side is typically two to three hours across the full engagement.

The engagement ends with the brief, the delivery call, and the 30-day follow-up. That is the scope. If the result produces a question about next steps, we discuss it. Some results lead to a deeper engagement. Some do not. The scope of anything downstream is defined and priced before work begins, exactly like the Analysis itself. There is no automatic next step and no retainer pitch at the end.

Scope is confirmed in writing before work begins. The price is confirmed before work begins. If scope changes materially during the engagement, that conversation happens before additional work does. Once work begins, the engagement runs to completion because the analysis requires the full process to produce a valid result.

Every engagement includes a mutual NDA executed before any sensitive information is shared. The diagnostic requires access to commercially sensitive data: cost structures, margin architecture, market plans, channel economics, and unit economics. That information is protected by agreement. The anonymized findings on this site exist because that commitment is real. If your legal team needs to review or modify the NDA before the engagement begins, that is expected and accommodated.

I tell you that. The engagement closes with a clear recommendation to proceed and a specific note on where the execution constraint lives. Not every model is broken. If the model holds, the $2,500 you spent confirmed that every dollar you deploy after it is going against a validated structure.

If you already know the constraint, the analysis will confirm it with evidence you can act on. Suspecting your CAC is unsustainable is not the same as knowing the published category floor is $544 when your model assumes $50. The analysis turns a suspicion into a number. Numbers produce decisions. Suspicions produce meetings.

Because your team is optimizing inside the model. The diagnostic pressure-tests the model itself. Your team knows the channels, the creative, the operations, and the customer better than anyone. What they are less likely to see is the structural assumption underneath all of that work that has never been validated. Five days with fresh math and the right questions surfaces what twelve months of internal iteration cannot, because internal teams are not hired to question the model they are executing.

That is precisely when the diagnostic matters most. Capital creates urgency to deploy. Urgency compresses diligence. The assumptions that survive a $500K annual spend become catastrophic at $2M. The diagnostic takes five days. The deployment timeline does not change materially. But the confidence behind the deployment does.

In many cases, mid-flight is exactly when the diagnostic is most useful because the data is live. You have real CAC numbers, real conversion rates, and real retention behavior. A diagnostic against live data produces a sharper finding than one built against projections. The question is not whether you are too far in. The question is whether continuing to spend against the current model is cheaper than spending five days confirming whether the model holds.

The findings on this site are anonymized by agreement because the issues identified are commercially sensitive. The companies are real. The numbers are exact. If you need a direct reference conversation before committing, raise it during the intake. That is a reasonable request and I will accommodate it where confidentiality agreements allow.

The deliverable includes the evidence and the reasoning behind every conclusion. The numbers are sourced. The benchmarks are cited. The scenarios are modeled with stated assumptions. If the finding is wrong, the math shows where it is wrong and you can challenge it directly. The 30-day follow-up exists precisely to check whether the original recommendation held up in practice.

The Findings page shows three real findings from completed engagements with company names withheld. The structure, the level of specificity, and the kind of evidence you see there is what the brief contains. If you want to see the format before committing, the intake conversation is the right place to ask.

Twenty-five years across capital markets, DTC, regulated healthcare, telehealth, supplements, and constrained commercial systems. The Industries page names the documented patterns by market. If you see your situation described there, the depth matches. If you do not, the intake conversation will surface that quickly.

The Analysis produces a finding, the evidence behind it, and a specific recommendation. It does not produce execution. If the finding points to work that needs to happen, the delivery call includes a conversation about what that work looks like and who should do it. Sometimes that is your existing team. Sometimes it is a deeper engagement with Breakline. The path is yours to choose.