Package Forge — requirements before price
Compare plans using the features and team size you need. Understand the sample monthly or yearly charge, and review what you would lose when moving to a smaller plan.
The product choice: Choose a plan that meets the requirements before comparing price. Try the sample · Follow the walkthrough.
Experience and decision
My Mabrosi work included defining free and paid tiers and their feature sets. This example focuses on whether a buyer can understand package fit, payment timing and the consequences of a downgrade. This is a separate fictional portfolio exercise; its records, rules and results do not reproduce an employer system.
Decision to challenge: Does the lowest-cost fitting tier solve the buyer’s real need? Clear arithmetic helps comprehension, but real pricing still needs willingness-to-pay, demand and cost evidence.
Problem and product judgment
A buyer can select a cheaper plan while accidentally removing an approval step, or read an annual equivalent as a monthly bill. Package Forge uses an explicit needs worksheet and a separate renewal review so the choice can be explained before a local simulation is confirmed.
Mo owns product/program direction; AI assisted implementation and verification. The scope is an original fictional prototype. No human interviews, owner endorsement, manual-coding claim, revenue effect, willingness-to-pay evidence or customer adoption is claimed.
The alternative and tradeoff
A price-led table minimizes steps but leaves capability and capacity failures implicit. An opaque wizard could recommend a package without exposing the requirement boundary. The chosen worksheet makes all three packages visible, annotates missing requirements, and recommends only the lowest-cost fit. A separate scope review adds effort when requirements change, which is justified because removing approvals changes the decision itself.
Cedar's 8 editors and 24 free viewers require approvals: Studio is the lowest-cost fit at $96/month. Annual Studio is $960 paid annually and $80 equivalent/month, not twelve $80 bills. Harbor requires audit export: Archive costs $2,880 annually. Widefield exceeds all capacities: there is honestly no fit. Kite's intentionally smaller renewal team can choose Base at $0, after seeing lost approvals and capacities 20→3 editors and 200→20 viewers.
Commitment and recovery
The active Studio baseline stays separate from a scheduled October31 change. Versioned quotes preserve exact assumptions and arithmetic; changing the draft cannot rewrite earlier commitments. Cancel-preview retains the schedule. Cancel-scheduled removes only that schedule and never restores an older one. A corrupt local record is preserved until explicit reset. These boundaries prioritize an understandable consequence over generic Undo everywhere.
Evidence and what remains unknown
Software checks establish calculation, fit, state integrity and reproducible browser behavior, detailed in Validation. Human evaluation is proposed: ask a participant to select Cedar's tier, explain annual cash commitment and describe Kite's losses and effective date. Success would be a correct explanation without prompting; no participant outcomes have been observed.
S053–S060 trace is in PRD. Sample contract reproduces the arithmetic and dates; walkthrough reproduces the route. Release evidence is maintained only in Validation.
Next investment decision
Package comprehension and price acceptance require separate evidence. First compare this worksheet with a price-led table: can buyers explain fit, annual cash commitment and downgrade losses without prompting? If comprehension holds, conduct separate discovery into needs, willingness to pay and the operating cost of the promised capabilities before choosing real tiers or prices. If buyers must remove a genuine requirement to get a recommendation, reconsider the package boundaries. More quote options should wait until the current choice is understandable; no illustrative price establishes demand, margin or conversion.