Pick a commercial structure → shape the per-seat split (all three columns) → stack the upsell layer → subtract costs → see final take-home for Sha, Yasmine, and T-lab. Adjust anything; the numbers follow.
Select the deal shape. This sets the default split logic but you can override every % in Step 2. CFO rec: #2 (Fixed fee + royalty) or #8 (Rev-share + MG).
Seat = USD 300 (≈RM1,275 @ FX 4.25). 1% gateway assumed (modeling only). Drag the split sliders — the three must total 100%. Seats are derived conservatively from marketing injection below (you can still override).
Conservative curve: seats = √((spend/1000) × 9) → RM100k ≈ 300 seats (deliberately under the 345 optimistic plan). Diminishing returns baked in.
Model X (T-lab bears ads) vs Model Y (ads off top). Push for Model X — if Y, demand higher Sha % or an MG.
In Model X, T-lab bears the ads separately — this field only matters if you switch to Model Y. It is tied to the marketing injection slider above.
Conservatively, I would underwrite 150–250 seats, not 500+.
Assumptions: Marketing budget RM100,000 · Course price USD 300 ≈ RM1,275 (RM4.25/USD) · Self-paced AI Readiness Foundation · Cold paid acquisition (Meta + LinkedIn + Google), no large existing audience.
Industry benchmarks for online education often show CAC ~USD 200–400+ on paid channels; efficient edtech funnels can do substantially better. Key variable = funnel quality, not ad budget alone.
| Scenario | CAC (RM) | Seats | Revenue (RM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 250 | 400 | 510,000 |
| Strong | 400 | 250 | 318,750 |
| Conservative | 556 | 180 | 229,500 |
| Weak funnel | 1,000 | 100 | 127,500 |
My underwriting number: 180 seats · RM229,500 revenue · RM100,000 ad spend · RM129,500 remaining before operations. Conservative enough for planning, still reflects a well-executed AI education product.
Funnel to produce 180 seats: 2.5–3.5M impressions → 62,500 landing visitors (2.5% CTR) → 12,500 lead signups (20%) → 4,375 webinar/email engaged (35%) → 180 purchases (4.1%). Requires a lead-gen funnel, not cold traffic to a RM1,275 checkout.
✅ FX aligned: both views now use USD300 ≈ RM1,275 (4.25), per the conservative underwriting basis.
Real margin lives here. Sha+Yas own 100%; T-lab earns only a 20% referral when it sources. Edit prices/volumes; add rows.
| Upsell product | Price (RM) | Qty/yr | Subtotal | Owner |
|---|
Who carries each cost changes net take-home. Assign per row. Options are your call (CFO: Option A = Sha+Yas pay from share, claim tax).
| Cost item | RM / yr | Paid by |
|---|
Foundation (Step 2) + Upsell (Step 3, owned) − Costs (Step 4) = net to each. Refine above; this updates live.
From CFO Analysis §7. Tick what you'll propose to T-lab. Route final wording to @shaclobot (CLO).
From CFO Analysis §6. Pick the model; it determines exit + relaunch rights. CFO rec: per-module carve-out or Sha+Yas own + terminable T-lab licence.
Scenario 1 — stop the partnership: If Sha+Yas own / carve-out → walk away with our slices, T-lab licence ends, owe them nothing. If T-lab owns → we lose the course. If joint → messy buyout.
Scenario 2 — run it ourselves later: If Sha+Yas own / carve-out → relaunch with another distributor, owe T-lab nothing post-term (make licence non-exclusive + terminable). If T-lab owns → would licence back or rebuild.
Internal decision tool · built from CFO Analysis rev 5 (cfo-trinovate-lab-analysis.md). Not a client-facing quote. Route final terms to @shaclobot (CLO) + @shacfo_bot before any partner document. Multi-party deal = Compliance layer.