What Lucid would show before you commit.
The proposed decision view would connect the reservation, tooling quote, production order and retailer’s payment terms. For each, it would show the consequence for your decision beside the term that creates it.
Here are the three results that would matter for this launch. This connected view is a proposal; agreement recording and review are further along.
Tooling can keep the bill open.
You can decide against production and still owe for work on the sample. If that work has no fixed total, the reservation fee does not tell you the cost of stopping.
- In the tooling quote
- Tooling is billed separately for work done. No maximum charge is stated.
- What needs to change
- The fixed €2,000 covers the reservation, sample and tooling. Stopping creates no further charges.
What Lucid would show
The cost of stopping is not bounded by €2,000. The tooling quote leaves additional charges open. A fixed stopping cost cannot be shown until those terms change.
Approving the sample can order the whole batch.
The retailer needs the sample to decide. But under the proposed production terms, your approval of that sample also starts manufacturing. You could owe for the batch before the retailer orders anything.
- In the production order
- Sample approval automatically releases production. The remaining €22,000 becomes payable.
- What needs to change
- Production requires a separate written order. The reservation lasts beyond the buyer’s decision date and does not renew automatically.
What Lucid would show
Approving the sample commits another €22,000. The decision view would put that payment beside the action that triggers it, before you approve the sample.
A worthwhile order can arrive before the cash.
Suppose the retailer offers €36,000. That covers the stated batch price, but it cannot pay the factory today if it arrives after delivery. You need a way to act on the offer.
- In the payment terms
- The factory requires payment before production. The retailer pays only after delivery.
- What needs to change for this example
- The buyer’s funds arrive before you order production. You also agree what delivery and any refund would require of you.
What Lucid would show
The retailer’s promised payment cannot fund production today. The factory payment comes first. The proposed check would keep money already received separate from money promised for later.
The other parties must agree to these changes. Until then, the tooling bill has no stated bound, production can start automatically, and the payment gap remains.
Now you can choose after seeing the offer.
Suppose you obtain the revised terms. The first €2,000 covers everything due if you stop. Another €22,000 becomes due only when you separately order the batch.
The buyer may offer too little, offer enough to make proceeding worthwhile, or never place an order. Choose a situation below to see what the right to decline changes.
Firm offer for the whole batch, received before the reservation expires
No buyer
You stop with the fee lost.
The reservation expires. You have paid €2,000 for the sample, tooling and slot. No production order means no further production payment.
- Cash result from this attempt
- −€2,000
The right to decline keeps an absent or inadequate order from starting a larger production bill.
These are separate hypothetical offers. The line assumes the revised terms, buyer funding and successful delivery. Once you order production, delivery failure and refund obligations need their own examination.
The choice creates the bend. That is convexity.
On the flat part of the line, you can turn down the offer and keep the loss at €2,000. On the rising part, each extra euro in the offer improves the result if you proceed and complete the deal.
You do not need to know which offer will arrive to understand this shape. You do need terms that let you decline, and the ability to carry out an order you accept.
Why the bend comes before break-even
The first €2,000 is already spent. An offer above the remaining €22,000 can reduce that loss. At €23,000, completing the deal leaves a €1,000 loss. You recover the whole cost at €24,000.
How you would use Lucid for this decision.
You would use it before paying the reservation or approving production, when there is still time to change the terms. The intended workflow connects what you already owe with what you are about to take on.
Record your starting position.
Enter the cash you have, the amount you chose to keep, and your existing signed agreements. Where PDF intake is enabled, Lucid drafts amounts and terms for you to check against the original pages. You correct them and explicitly save. Unsigned offers stay outside those commitments.
Inspect what the next step would commit.
The proposed launch view would show the three consequences above, with their source terms. Once the cost is bounded, the intended financial check would use your recorded cash and commitments to test the next payment against the amount you chose to keep. For the reservation, that means checking whether you can lose €2,000 and still respect that limit.
Change the terms, then record what you agree.
You take the unresolved tooling cost, automatic production order and payment gap back to the other parties. If they agree to changes, you record the signed terms. Ordering production later needs a fresh check: being able to lose the reservation fee does not settle whether you can take on the batch.
Why use the app?
The intended benefit is a decision you can inspect in one place: the payment you are considering, the terms that could make you owe more, and the effect on money you chose to keep. In this launch, that would let you negotiate a fixed cost of trying while preserving the choice to take a worthwhile order.
What is built, and what remains proposed
The development build records cash, your chosen minimum and signed commitments. PDF extraction, source review and corrections are implemented and tested locally; broader evaluation remains before customer uploads.
The connected decision view and comparison of unsigned launch terms remain proposals. The complete financial check is not yet implemented. Lucid does not currently negotiate these changes or authorize this launch.
Read the assumptions, arithmetic and source
The product business, lamp, amounts and proposed terms are fictional. The revised agreements are a hypothetical negotiated alternative. Nothing on this page signs or changes an agreement.
- The illustration covers one defined batch. Under the revised terms, the reservation fee is credited against its €24,000 all-in price. Only a separate order commits the remaining €22,000. The fee is counted once.
- The transaction result is max(offer − €22,000, €0) − €2,000. The bend is at €22,000; break-even is at €24,000.
- The horizontal axis is an executable whole-batch offer available before expiry. The business must recognize the opportunity, be able to fund it, choose whether to proceed and complete the deal with both parties performing.
- The €2,000 loss applies to declining under the revised terms. The graph does not bound supplier default, delivery failure, refund obligations, the entire business or repeated attempts.
- The as-offered tooling terms have no stated bound. No total is invented for them. No Maximum Losses across shared sources are added.
A reservation can carry a purchase commitment. For a real example of that distinction, see §2.4 of the Cirrus Logic / GlobalFoundries capacity agreement. That semiconductor agreement does not supply the fictional lamp prices or the revised terms here.
The earlier screen-rights example introduces the payoff shape. This example examines the connected terms needed to make the choice usable.