| 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Units | 1,800 | 7,500 | 16,000 |
| Revenue | $268K | $1.19M | $2.58M |
| Gross margin | 58% | 64% | 66% |
| Opex | $310K | $620K | $980K |
| EBITDA | -$155K | $142K | $723K |
| Case | Trigger | 2027 units | 2027 EBITDA | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull | Campaign 2× goal + retail early | 11,000 | $390K | Pull 10K element order forward |
| Base | Campaign at comp median | 7,500 | $142K | Plan as written |
| Bear | Campaign at goal only | 3,800 | -$95K | Cut opex to $450K, skip retail |
| Kill | Campaign misses goal | — | — | Return deposits, open-source the design |
| 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative cash | -$155K | -$13K | +$710K |
| Trough | -$395K in Sep 2026 | ||
| Inflection | Q3 2027 | ||
| Cohort trough | 14 to 20 months to inflection | ours is 15 |
Peak funding need is $395K, in September 2026, between the tooling deposit and campaign cash landing. Against $240K on hand and a $150K campaign goal, the plan clears it by roughly $5K, which is not a margin, it is a coincidence.
This is the single most under-discussed number in the case. The model turns EBITDA-positive in 2027 and that is what gets presented, but the project can die in September 2026 with a perfectly good three-year model on the table. Fifteen months to inflection is inside the 14 to 20 the cohort shows, so the shape is normal. Normal is what kills them.
| Check | Model says | Source says | Agrees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 units | 1,800 | GTM channels sum to 1,800 | yes |
| Contribution per unit | $93 | Unit Economics fully loaded, $66 | no |
| Y1 opex | $310K | Resource plan, $18K/mo plus contract | yes |
| Retail revenue 2027 | included at direct margin | GTM says 40% wholesale | no |
The model carries $93 contribution where Unit Economics, fully loaded, produces $66. That is a $49K difference on 1,800 units, which is a third of the 2026 loss, and it exists because the projection was built from the quoted COGS rather than the cost to serve.
The model also books 2027 retail at direct margin while the GTM plan sells it through design retail at a 40% wholesale discount. Correcting both does not break the case, but it moves the inflection from Q3 to Q4 2027 and deepens the trough. The spec's point about assumptions living in separate documents that do not reconcile is not hypothetical here.