Solar365 / One-page plan

Approve discovery. Let the proposal loop prove the investment.

The investable question is narrow: can Solar365 turn a qualified commercial enquiry into a better proposal packet with less expert effort?

Blueprint: One-Page Plan

14d

first ask

source: transformation plan | confidence: decision | status: immediate

$15K-$25K

Stage 1 estimate

source: research note | confidence: estimate | status: verify before commit

30%

Week 6 floor

source: transformation plan | confidence: decision | status: kill signal

50%

target effort cut

source: transformation plan | confidence: assumption | status: baseline first

The bet

A discovery-first proposal cockpit bet, not a broad AI roadmap.

The first action should create decision evidence. Stage 1 only starts if the baseline shows enough leverage upside.

What must be true

[FACT] Solar365 has public trust proof: 3,000 installations, 15 years combined experience, 16% average return, and 6-year payback claims.
[FACT] Solar365's current named process is Lead Gen -> Enquiry Triage -> Proposal Generation -> Sub-contractor Engagement -> Billing.
[INFERRED] The binding constraint is leverage: expert time is doing too much triage, proposal, follow-up, and handoff work.
[DECISION] The first commitment is a 14-day discovery sprint, not a build.
[DECISION] The Stage 1 candidate is a commercial proposal cockpit for businesses first and schools second.

Source trail

Template: playbook/business/instruments/strategy/instrument-strategy-one-page-plan.md
Roadmap source: playbook/business/instruments/strategy/instrument-strategy-ai-transformation-roadmap.md
Constraint source: playbook/business/instruments/operations/instrument-operations-constraint-map.md
Data-flow source: playbook/business/instruments/operations/instrument-operations-data-flow-map.md
ROI source: playbook/business/instruments/finance/instrument-finance-ai-roi-model.md
Evidence Ledger: public proof, intake limits, stack, known unknowns.
Transformation Plan: first proof, GO conditions, Stage 1 kill signals.
Objection Map: control, voice, data, ROI, and delivery concerns.
Confidence Case: Reality -> Dream -> Bridge and steering gate.
One-page Commercial Plan: problem, solution, numbers, ask, kill signal.

The case

The trust is visible. The leverage gain must be proven.

Solar365 should not automate trust away. The cockpit exists to prepare the facts so human judgment can move faster and remember more.

[FACT] The public form captures contact, location, build type, and broad property type.
[INFERRED] The form does not visibly capture enough data for a decision-ready proposal: bill size, urgency, roof facts, budget, and decision date are missing.
[ASSUMPTION] Faster, better-structured commercial proposals can improve owner leverage and buyer confidence.
[UNKNOWN] Proposal volume, win rate, gross profit by segment, and current proposal cycle time must be verified before Stage 1.
[UNKNOWN] OpenSolar automation rights and current template quality must be audited before any workflow build.

The economics

No ROI claim without the missing numbers.

The report should persuade action without pretending certainty. Discovery buys the numbers that make the Stage 1 decision defensible.

[ESTIMATE] Stage 1 budget posture is NZD $15K-$25K over 90 days.
[DECISION] Discovery must prove enough proposal volume and owner time drag to justify that spend.
[ASSUMPTION] The target is a 50% reduction in owner/proposal effort from qualified enquiry to proposal sent.
[DECISION] The Week 6 floor is 30% effort reduction; below that, pause or narrow.
[UNKNOWN] True payback needs proposal count, win rate, average gross profit, and the value of saved expert hours.

The decision

Approve 14 days. Decide Stage 1 only after the evidence lands.

The ask is useful because it is small, dated, and reversible. It creates the proof needed for the real funding decision.

Ask + next action

[ASK] Approve the 14-day discovery sprint.
[DAY 3] Produce 20 recent enquiries tagged by source, segment, stage, outcome, lost reason, and owner time.
[DAY 7] Time 5 proposal examples from enquiry to sent proposal.
[DAY 10] Audit OpenSolar, Quotient, and Xero for templates, exports, duplicate entry, and automation rights.
[DAY 14] Decide GO / NARROW / HOLD on Stage 1.

Kill signals

Discovery quality

20 leads or 5 proposal examples cannot be reconstructed with enough detail.

Do not start Stage 1. Fix capture first.

Owner: Mike / Austin

Tool feasibility

OpenSolar, Quotient, and Xero cannot support enough practical data movement.

Narrow to template and process improvement before automation.

Owner: Dream + proposal lead

Stage 1 leverage

Proposal effort does not fall by at least 30% by Week 6.

Pause or narrow before further spend.

Owner: Mike / Austin

Put this to work

Build the owner pitch with your own AI assistant

For Mike / Austin

Copy this prompt. Paste into Claude, ChatGPT, or any AI assistant. The page context is already loaded — send it and get analysis tailored to your role.

I need to explain Solar365's first AI transformation step to a skeptical owner in one screen.

THE BET:
Do not buy broad AI automation. First approve a 14-day discovery sprint. The sprint decides whether a 90-day commercial proposal cockpit is worth funding.

KNOWN FACTS:
Solar365 publicly claims 3,000 installations, 15 years combined experience, 16% average return, and 6-year payback.
Solar365 serves residential, commercial, schools, farms, community centres, and solar farms.
The visible form captures contact, location, build type, and broad property type.
The local process is Lead Gen -> Enquiry Triage -> Proposal Generation -> Sub-contractor Engagement -> Billing.

CURRENT HYPOTHESIS:
The constraint is leverage. Expert proposal judgment is trapped in manual triage, proposal work, follow-up, and handoff.

ASK:
Approve discovery. By Day 14, decide whether to fund Stage 1 at an estimated NZD $15K-$25K over 90 days.

KILL SIGNAL:
If Stage 1 starts and proposal effort does not fall by at least 30% by Week 6, pause or narrow.

Write a 5-sentence owner pitch. Then list the 3 strongest objections and the honest answer to each.

Next →Compare AI chat providers: costs, strengths, fit