Risk Register
The risks that could knock The Perfect Toasteroff course, each with a likelihood, an impact, an owner, and the mitigation we're counting on.
| Risk | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heating-element supplier can't hit volume pricingRe-quote with two backup vendors; lock a price before tooling. | Supply | high | high | Sean | open |
| UL certification slips past the launch windowEngage a test lab early; pre-review the enclosure spec. | Compliance | medium | high | Unassigned | open |
| Even-toasting claim doesn't hold across bread typesPrototype test matrix across 6 breads before finalizing element layout. | Product | medium | medium | Design | watching |
| Target price undercut by an incumbent refreshTrack competitor filings; keep a differentiation story that isn't price. | Market | low | high | Pedram | watching |
| Counter-footprint too large for small kitchensTwo-slot vertical variant validated in early sketch review. | Product | low | medium | Design | mitigated |
How each risk actually shows up, and what appears first
| Risk | Manifestation | Earliest observable sign | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Element re-quote above $62 | Margin falls below the level that funds the business, quietly, in a spreadsheet | The vendor asks for volume commitments not previously required | ours |
| UL finding on cord tip-over | Six-week slip that lands on the campaign date, not the engineering date | Pre-review raises the foot geometry at all | ours |
| Gifting thesis is wrong | Campaign converts the community and then stops dead | Day-3 conversion flat after the community wave | systematic |
| Balmuda ships serviceable | The differentiation argument disappears mid-campaign | A parts catalogue on their site, not a product launch | systematic |
| Community authorship claim | One public post during the campaign, amplified | Any contributor asking how credit works | ours |
Which of these collapse the thesis rather than dent it
Element re-quote above $62Collapses. The 65% margin is the case, and every downstream number inherits it.thesis-collapsing
Gifting thesis is wrongCollapses. It is the volume assumption behind Y1, and it currently rests on zero primary evidence.thesis-collapsing
UL timingDents, expensively. It moves revenue rather than removing it, and the fix is already scoped.thesis-denting
Balmuda respondsDents. Eighteen months is enough time to be established, and their response validates the category.thesis-denting
Second-order consequences
The chain that matters runs from the element re-quote. A higher COGS forces a price rise to $189, which the survey puts at 51% acceptance rather than 68%, which cuts Y1 volume to roughly 1,350, which puts the campaign near its goal rather than above it, which triggers the bear case opex cut, which removes the ops hire, which is the person who would have run fulfilment for the units already sold.
One supplier conversation, five steps, and the failure is operational rather than financial. This is why the re-quote sits first in the Validation Plan despite costing nothing.