This is a fictional test artifact. It describes no real business, person, or number, and nothing derived from it is a Backbrief decision.
Decision Memo: 90-Day Path for the Bookkeeping Cleanup Business
Date: 2026-09-10 | Requested by: builder (fixture unit F2) | Status: awaiting owner GO/NO-GO
Decision statement
Over the next 90 days (line 10), should the owner focus on getting more accountant referrals, build the self-serve $79-a-month product, or keep doing what is already working?
Options
Option A: more accountant referrals. Deepen the one relationship that has already produced four of six cleanups (fixture-brief.md, lines 8-9) and look for a second accountant like it. Keeps the $900 cleanup fee and the $250-a-month follow-on (line 7) as the core offer.
Option B: build the self-serve $79-a-month product. Turn the existing spreadsheet template and one-page PDF checklist (line 13) into a paid self-serve product with a monthly review call, priced at $79 a month (lines 10-11). This is a new, unbuilt offer.
Option C: no change. Keep running the cleanup service exactly as now: $900 flat fee, about $250 a month after (line 7), roughly 15 hours a week available (line 9), no dedicated push toward either path. Six cleanups in four months (line 8) is the current pace, and nothing in the brief suggests that changes without new effort in either direction.
Evidence
| Claim | Source | Tag |
|---|---|---|
| $900 flat fee per cleanup, about $250 a month after | fixture-brief.md, line 7 | owner-stated |
| Six cleanups in the last four months, four from one accountant's referrals | fixture-brief.md, lines 8-9 | owner-stated |
| About 15 hours a week available beside a day job | fixture-brief.md, line 9 | owner-stated |
| $79-a-month proposed price for the self-serve product | fixture-brief.md, lines 10-11 | owner-stated (a proposed price, not a sale) |
| $500 available to spend on ads | fixture-brief.md, line 12 | owner-stated |
| Whether pursuing referrals deliberately keeps converting at the same 4-of-6 rate | not in the brief | assumption |
| Whether enough buyers exist for a $79-a-month self-serve product | not in the brief | unknown |
| Time cost of building the self-serve product against the existing 15-hour week | not in the brief | unknown |
Risks and reversibility
Option A (more referrals). Risk: the business stays dependent on one accountant, and that relationship could cool or send fewer referrals. The brief states no mitigation, so this risk stands unmitigated today. Reversible fast: outreach can stop the same week, with no cost sunk beyond the hours already spent.
Option B (self-serve product). Risk: the $500 ad budget (line 12) and part of the 15-hour week (line 9) go into building and marketing a product with no stated buyer yet. If it does not sell, that time and money do not come back. Reversible only going forward: the owner can stop building at any point, but ad spend already made and hours already worked are sunk.
Option C (no change). Risk: staying flat while one accountant is the main lead source, four of six cleanups (lines 8-9) leaves the whole business dependent on that single relationship. Fully reversible at any point, since nothing new is committed.
Recommendation
Option A, more accountant referrals, because it extends a channel the brief already shows working, four of the six cleanups so far (lines 8-9), instead of spending the $500 ad budget and scarce weekly hours on an unbuilt product with no stated buyer.
Cost
Option A: time only, inside the existing 15-hour week (line 9); the brief states no required ad spend for this path. Option B: up to the full $500 ad budget (line 12), plus building time drawn from the same 15 hours. Option C: no new cost.
GO/NO-GO request
Does the owner approve spending the next 90 days on Option A, more accountant referrals, using the existing 15-hour week and holding the $500 ad budget in reserve? Or does the owner choose Option B, Option C, or a different split?