| Metric | Current | Target (launch) | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waitlist size | 1,203 | 2,500 | +18%/mo |
| Waitlist → campaign conv. (modeled) | 22% | 30% | — |
| Community participants | 324 | 400 | +6%/mo |
| Browning evenness | ±8% | ±5% | improving |
| Confidence (Leo) | 58% | 75% | +3 this month |
| Milestone | Evidence that clears it | Capital released | If missed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Element price locked | Signed quote under $62 at 5K | $40K tooling deposit | Qualify Taiwan, slip a quarter |
| UL pre-review passed | Written pre-review with no blocking finding | $4K full submission | Foot redesign, 6 weeks, already scoped |
| Campaign funded | 150% of goal at close | Full production run | Stop. Return deposits, open-source |
| First 500 shipped | Return rate under 8% at day 30 | Second run | Halt, teardown, no second run |
| Retail readiness | Attach above 20% and COGS at $49 | Wholesale inventory | Stay direct through 2027 |
The six comparable premium-toaster campaigns raised a $1.1M median and fulfilled on schedule 82% of the time. Our $150K goal is well below the cohort median, which makes funding likely and says nothing about whether the plan is good. The interesting cohort number is the fulfilment one: roughly one in five slipped, and the slippage was almost always tooling or certification rather than demand.
Both of our two live risks sit in exactly that category. This is a plan whose failure mode matches the cohort's, which is worth knowing and is not reassuring.
Evidence-gated tranches rather than calendar stages. Each milestone releases the capital the next one needs and no more, which suits a hardware project whose costs step rather than accrue: tooling, certification and a production run are three commitments that cannot be partly made.
The alternative considered was time-boxed phases with a quarterly review. Rejected because the expensive decisions here are not evenly spaced, and a quarterly cadence would either release tooling capital before the element price is known or hold it after.