Protocol Raw - Business Plan v2.3¶

Final Execution-Ready Edition
Last updated: February 3, 2026
Comprehensive merge: v2.0 operational depth + v2.1 strategic refinements + v2.2 comprehensive merge + v2.3 metrics reconciliation

Version History¶

v2.3 (February 3, 2026) — Metrics Reconciliation¶

Why this version exists:

Metrics Reconciliation v1.0 identified that £1,040 appeared across Financial Model, Growth Strategy, and Business Plan meaning three different things. Churn rate definitions also differed between documents without explanation. v2.3 adds explicit terminology and cross-references so an investor reading across documents encounters consistent language.

What v2.3 adds: - ✅ ARPU Target section: Renamed to "Realised ARPU Target" with theoretical ARPU (£1,180) context and explicit note that £1,040 identity with Financial Model LTV is coincidental - ✅ Retention System Targets: Added two-layer churn framing (Box-2 retention, steady-state churn, implied blended, Financial Model conservative assumption) - ✅ Full encoding cleanup: Fixed all corrupted Unicode characters inherited from previous versions

Ref: Metrics Reconciliation v1.0, Financial Model v1.3

v2.2 (January 27, 2026) — Comprehensive Merge¶

Why this version exists:

v2.1 added critical strategic refinements (Two Crowns Framework, Outcomes Data Infrastructure, Institutional Relationship Strategy, 4 new strategic risks) but lost substantial operational detail from v2.0 in the process. v2.2 restores the full operational depth while properly integrating the v2.1 strategic additions.

What v2.2 restores from v2.0: - ✅ Complete Problem & Wedge section with detailed market evidence - ✅ Complete Product section with formulation details - ✅ Full "Why All Life Stages" strategic advantage section - ✅ Complete Competitive Moat section (5 moats detailed) - ✅ Full Market Analysis with barrier hierarchy - ✅ Complete Pricing & Unit Economics with ARPU targets - ✅ Full Cost Targets & COGS Path - ✅ Complete Logistics section with dual metrics reporting - ✅ Full Contribution Targets - ✅ Complete Phase A Pre-Launch Actions checklist - ✅ Full Month-by-Month Phase A roadmap (Months 1-6) - ✅ Complete Seed-Raise Trigger section - ✅ Full Retention System section with cadence management - ✅ Complete Verified Raw Treats expansion strategy (Month 9-11) - ✅ Full Systems-First Company section with automation reality - ✅ Complete Risks & Stop-rules with falsification test - ✅ Full Long-Term Vision & European Expansion (market-by-market) - ✅ Complete Capital Plan with detailed allocations - ✅ Full Manufacturing Decision Framework with competitive precedent - ✅ Complete Team & Hiring section (Operations Lead profile, Jamie's role, Phase C COO evaluation) - ✅ Complete Co-packer Strategy - ✅ Complete Financial Model Summary - ✅ Full Scale Path (Phases A-D) - ✅ Complete Appendix: Option B Manufacturing Cost Methodology

What v2.2 integrates from v2.1: - ✅ Two Crowns Framework (positioned after Three Moats in Executive Summary) - ✅ Outcomes Data Infrastructure (new section after Strategic Risks) - ✅ Institutional Relationship Strategy (new section) - ✅ 4 additional strategic risks: Narrative theft, "safety company" pigeonhole, second moat neglect, "impressive but not for me" - ✅ Brand Principles updates ("We lead with the feeling. We back it with the system.") - ✅ "Worry Goes Away" litmus test as release gate - ✅ Phase A "Quiet Infrastructure" workstream - ✅ Customer Advocacy Language Tracking - ✅ Ring-fenced budget protection for outcomes moat - ✅ Updated Success Metrics with v2.1 additions - ✅ Settlement Period Actions with outcomes infrastructure tasks - ✅ Database schema for health outcomes (Appendix)

Changes: - ✅ Added new Strategic Risks: Narrative theft, "safety company" pigeonhole, second moat neglect, "impressive but not for me" - ✅ Added Outcomes Data Infrastructure section - ✅ Added Phase A "Quiet Infrastructure" workstream - ✅ Added Two Crowns Framework - ✅ Added brand principle: "We lead with the feeling. We back it with the system." - ✅ Added Institutional Relationship Strategy - ✅ Refined messaging emphasis: Outcome-first, mechanism-second - ✅ Added "Worry Goes Away" litmus test as release gate - ✅ Added ring-fenced budget protection: £2-5k/month for outcomes moat

Rationale: External strategic review validated 80-85% of existing strategy but surfaced critical refinements around narrative defence urgency, the risk of permanent "safety company" pigeonholing, and the need for budget protection (not just governance) for the outcomes moat.

v2.0 (January 26, 2026) - Manufacturing Cost Model Correction & Technical Bandwidth Assessment¶

Changes: - ✅ Added Month 12-14: Technical Bandwidth Assessment - ✅ Corrected Option B capex: £3-5M → £1.25-2.0M - ✅ Added Option B fixed opex: £400-600k/year - ✅ Updated Series A sizing for Option B: £15-20M → £12-17M - ✅ Added Appendix: Option B Manufacturing Cost Methodology

(Full version history from v1.2-v1.9 preserved at end of document)

Executive Summary¶

The Market Creation Opportunity¶

The Core Insight: The UK raw dog food market (£255M) is blocked by a Clinical Safety Barrier—not vague anxiety, but specific fear of bacterial pathogens (Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria), actively reinforced by NHS guidance, the British Veterinary Association, and most practising vets. This is the medical establishment saying "don't do this." Raw has captured 32% of the premium segment but cannot grow further because the #1 objection—"it's unsafe"—has no verifiable answer.

The Validation: Butternut Box's £150M revenue proves the raw-curious TAM exists at scale. These customers didn't reject raw feeding—they rejected unverified raw feeding and settled for the "cooking solution" because the "verification solution" didn't exist. They chose Butternut because cooking addresses the bacterial fear. Protocol Raw addresses it through testing.

The Solution: Protocol Raw removes the Clinical Safety Barrier through independent pathogen testing at clinical standards. Every batch undergoes UKAS-certified lab testing (Salmonella, Listeria, Enterobacteriaceae) with results published via QR codes on packaging. This transforms "trust us, it's safe" into "here's the lab report—verify yourself." We provide the evidence the medical establishment would need to reconsider its position.

The Opportunity: If verification unlocks the safety-blocked cohort analogous to UK organic food growth (2.5× multiplier), the raw market expands from £255M to £638M. At 11-14% market share, Protocol Raw achieves £70-89M ARR in the UK by Year 5. With European expansion (Years 6-8), combined ARR reaches £143-185M, supporting a £1.14B-£2.22B enterprise value at 8-12× ARR multiples.

Three Overlapping Moats Create 36-42 Month Competitive Lag¶

1. Proof Infrastructure (Time-Locked Trust Capital) - 18-24 month proof data accumulation cannot be accelerated - Cryptographic integrity (hash-sealed PDFs, immutable audit trails) - By Month 24: 200+ published batch reports with zero released pathogen failures - Customer verification ritual creates brand loyalty through transparency - Competitive lag: 18-24 months minimum

2. All Life Stages Formulation (Lifetime Customer Capture) - FEDIAF Growth & Reproduction compliance (hardest regulatory standard) - Unlocks £240M premium puppy segment competitors cannot access - Lifetime customer lock-in (never need to switch formulas) - Competitor reformulation requires 12-18 months + proof data reset - Competitive lag: 30-42 months total

3. AI-Native Operations (10-19× Capital Efficiency) - 70-80% automation achieves efficiency of 5-10 person ops team - £45k/year tooling vs £470k/year traditional ops headcount at 100k customers - 42-47% contribution margins vs 30-35% traditional CPG - Built for 100,000+ customers from Day 1 (no re-architecture required) - Competitive lag: 18-24 months to build infrastructure

Combined competitive advantage: 36-42 months even if rational competitor starts building today.

The Two Crowns Framework (NEW in v2.1)¶

Protocol Raw pursues two sequential "crowns"—category-defining positions that create durable competitive advantage:

Phase A Crown (Visible, Months 0-18):
"They made raw feeding something you don't have to worry about."

This is the safety crown, framed as customer outcome. The goal is to win this so completely that it becomes boring for the market to argue about. Every competitor must either match our verification or accept positioning as "the one that doesn't test."

Phase B Crown (Visible, Months 18-36):
"They understand what raw actually does to dogs."

This is the outcomes crown. It changes the competitive frame from "Is raw feeding safe?" (Phase A) to "Does this food actually improve health?"—a much larger market.

Sequencing Logic: - Safety wins entry (removes barrier to trial) - Outcomes win authority (creates expertise positioning) - Authority wins permanence (becomes the reference point)

The Pigeonhole Risk:

"By the time Protocol Raw wants to 'switch crowns,' the market may have permanently filed us as 'the safety raw company.' That's not a bad box, but it's a sticky one."

The "two crowns" model is internally clean but risks external pigeonholing. Customers and press don't experience neat phases—they form lasting impressions early.

Mitigation: Phase A Curiosity Signals

Quietly seed—very lightly—the idea that Protocol Raw is learning what raw does to dogs, not just making it safe. Not as claims. As curiosity signals. This keeps the door open for Phase B without diluting Phase A focus.

The Path to £100M+ ARR¶

UK Growth Case (2.5× expansion - Years 1-5): - Raw market: £255M → £638M verified raw - Fresh market converts (30-40% of Butternut Box customers = £45-60M) - Raw-curious premium kibble unlocked (20-30% = £20-60M) - Protocol Raw at 11-14% share: £70-89M ARR - Exit value (7-10× ARR): £490-890M

European Expansion Multiplier (Years 6-8): - EU dog food market: €30-35B (£25-29B) - 6-7× UK size - Raw penetration: 1-3% (underdeveloped vs UK 5-6%) - Addressable EU raw market: £250-420M across major markets - FEDIAF compliance transfers (regulatory gold standard) - AI-native ops enable low-cost multi-country scale (£150-250k per market)

Combined ARR by Year 8: - UK (mature): £83-104M ARR (assuming continued strong execution) - EU (4-5 markets): £60-81M ARR (Germany, France, Benelux, Nordics) - Total: £143-185M ARR - Exit value (8-12× ARR): £1.14B - £2.22B

Why Premium Multiples (8-12× ARR for Pan-European)¶

Strategic acquirers (Nestl×, Mars, Royal Canin) pay premium multiples for: - ✓ Category infrastructure (verified standard across multiple geographies) - ✓ Technology platform (AI-native ops, proof infrastructure, 10-19× leverage) - ✓ SaaS-like margins (42-47% contribution vs 30-35% traditional CPG) - ✓ Regulatory gold standard (FEDIAF Growth & Reproduction pan-European) - ✓ Multi-year moat (proof data + operational discipline + formulation barrier)

Two Rational Exit Paths¶

Path 1: UK-Only Focus (Years 5-7) - Build UK to £70-89M ARR (Growth Case) - Prove EU pilots (Ireland, Netherlands for validation) - Strategic exit: £490-890M - Lower risk, faster timeline, strong outcome

Path 2: Pan-European Unicorn Scale (Years 8-10) - Build UK to £83-104M ARR - Series B (£30-50M) for EU multi-market expansion - Scale to £143-185M combined ARR - Strategic exit: £1.14B - £2.22B - Higher risk, longer timeline, exceptional outcome

Both paths start identically: Prove UK model (Seed + Series A). EU decision comes at Year 5-6 based on UK performance.

Investment Highlights¶

✓ Market creation play (removing trust ceiling blocking £255M stagnant market)
✓ Validated TAM (Butternut Box £150M proves raw-curious buyers exist)
✓ Durable moats (36-42 month competitive lag from overlapping advantages)
✓ Capital efficiency (10-19× operational leverage creates margin advantage)
✓ High retention D2C (70%+ Box-2, strong unit economics)
✓ Regulatory gold standard (FEDIAF Growth & Reproduction = pan-European credential)
✓ International portability (proof infrastructure + ops platform + compliance travel)
✓ Clear exit optionality (UK-only £490-890M or Pan-European £1.14B-£2.22B)

The Ask¶

Seed Round (Month 6-7): £1.0-1.5M - Fund UK Phase B (London scale + City 2 launch) - Prove retention (70%+ Box-2), unit economics, vet endorsements - Validate category expansion thesis (fresh market conversion beginning) - Milestone: 7,000-10,000 customers, £7-10M ARR run-rate

Series A Trigger (Month 18-20): £10-20M - UK national expansion + EU pilots (Ireland, Netherlands) - Prove repeatable city playbook, category leadership - Milestone: £30-40M UK ARR, £5-8M EU pilot ARR

Series B Trigger (Year 5-6): £30-50M (if Path 2 chosen) - EU multi-market expansion (4-5 countries) - Path to £100M+ combined ARR - Milestone: £143-185M ARR by Year 8, pan-European category leadership

One-Line¶

Protocol Raw. Verified raw feeding — every batch tested, every result published.

Problem & Wedge¶

The Clinical Safety Barrier Blocking Raw Feeding Growth¶

Raw feeding (£255M UK market) is blocked by a Clinical Safety Barrier—specific fear of bacterial pathogens (Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria), actively reinforced by NHS guidance, the British Veterinary Association, and most practising vets. This isn't vague anxiety—it's the medical establishment saying "don't do this."

Market Evidence (2024 Financial Data): - Natures Menu (largest raw brand): -8% revenue decline - Natural Instinct: 0% growth (flat) - Bella & Duke: +13% growth (reframing works, but still unverified) - Weighted average: +1-2% (effective stagnation)

This stagnation occurs despite: - ✓ Continued pet humanization trend - ✓ Growing premium segment overall (8-10% CAGR) - ✓ No decline in product quality or distribution - ✓ Favorable macro environment

The only explanation: "Trust us, it's safe" cannot overcome institutionally reinforced bacterial fear. Remaining premium buyers need evidence, not reassurance.

TAM Validation: Butternut Box's £150M revenue proves raw-curious buyers exist at scale. These customers didn't reject raw feeding—they settled for cooking because it addresses the bacterial fear that raw brands ignore. They chose cooking over raw not because they prefer it, but because "gently cooked to keep it safe" is an answer to "what about Salmonella?"

The Wedge: Verification Removes the Clinical Safety Barrier¶

Current State ("Trust Us"): - Bacterial risk is real and documented (Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli outbreaks) - Brands claim safety but provide no evidence - Vets actively recommend against raw due to unverified pathogen risk - NHS and BVA guidance reinforces "raw = risky" - Premium buyers stuck: Want raw nutrition, but can't answer "what about bacteria?" - Result: £255M market stalled at Clinical Safety Barrier

Protocol Raw ("Verify Yourself"): - Every batch → Independent UKAS lab testing (clinical-grade standards) - Salmonella, Listeria, Enterobacteriaceae results published before release - QR code on packaging → View full lab certificate - Customer can show vet, partner, family: "Here's the test result" - Result: Evidence removes need for trust, unlocks safety-blocked cohort

The "Responsible = Verified" Reframe¶

Currently, kibble is seen as the "responsible" choice because vets recommend it. Raw is seen as "risky" because vets advise against it.

Protocol Raw redefines "responsible": - "Responsible" isn't choosing what the vet recommends by default - "Responsible" is choosing what has verified safety evidence - "Responsible" is checking the lab report yourself, not trusting a brand claim

This reframe matters because: - It gives customers language to defend their choice ("I've seen the test results") - It shifts the burden of proof to unverified options ("Why doesn't your food have batch testing?") - It positions Protocol Raw as the adult, evidence-based choice—not the niche, risky one

Category Expansion Thesis¶

If verification unlocks the safety-blocked cohort (analogous to UK organic food certification driving 2.5× expansion over 11 years), the raw market expands from £255M to £638M (Growth Case, 2.5× multiplier).

Expansion sources: - Current raw feeders (£255M baseline maintained) - Fresh market conversion (30-40% of Butternut Box customers = £45-60M) - Raw-curious premium kibble unlocked (20-30% = £20-60M)

At 11-14% market share: Protocol Raw achieves £70-89M ARR by Year 5 in UK.

With European expansion (Years 6-8): Combined UK + EU ARR reaches £143-185M, supporting £1.14B-£2.22B enterprise value at 8-12× ARR multiples.

Product (What We Sell)¶

Core Formulation¶

Multi-protein complete raw food combining: - Human-Chain Certified Chicken (with finely ground bone, hearts, gizzards, and skin) - Grass-Fed Beef (green tripe, liver, kidney, and spleen) - Pork Heart (concentrated source of taurine and iron) - Wild-Caught Marine Proteins (whole mackerel, blue mussel, oyster meat) - Supporting Ingredients (free-range egg, cold-pressed sunflower seed meal, nutritional yeast, kelp meal)

All sourced from Category 3 (human food chain) UK suppliers. Every ingredient serves a nutritional function - no fillers, no synthetic premixes. - Natural micronutrients via organs, oily fish, kelp, and nutritional yeast (no synthetic premixes) - Every batch safety-tested: Salmonella absent in 25g; Listeria absent in 25g; Enterobacteriaceae <100 cfu/g (hygiene indicator) via a UKAS-accredited lab before release (Test-and-Release Protocol Standard) - FEDIAF alignment by design: Full nutrient panel commissioned for "complete" claim - Growth and Reproduction standard (suitable for all life stages: puppies, adults, pregnant/lactating)

SKUs (Simple and Deliberate)¶

8 kg Starter: Trial size, lower freezer burden, easy entry (~5% of volume)
12 kg Core: Best value for reorders and standard subscription (~80% of volume, primary SKU)
16 kg Premium: Large dogs (25-40kg), multi-dog households (~15% of volume)

Single-SKU Strategy: Protocol Raw Complete - All Life Stages. One perfected formulation suitable for puppies, adults, and pregnant/lactating dogs.

Why "All Life Stages" is a Strategic Advantage¶

The Competitive Reality¶

Most raw brands force customers to choose: - Separate puppy formulas (higher protein/calcium) - Adult maintenance formulas - Senior formulas - Pregnancy/lactation formulas

This creates operational complexity and decision paralysis: - "Which formula do I need right now?" - "When do I switch from puppy to adult?" - "What if I have dogs at different life stages?" - "Do I really need to change formula for my pregnant dog?"

Our Single-Formula Approach¶

Protocol Raw meets FEDIAF Growth and Reproduction standards - the most stringent nutritional benchmark in pet food regulation. This means our single formula is suitable for:

✓ Puppies (0-12 months) - Supports rapid growth without DOD risk
✓ Adults (1-7 years) - Maintains optimal body condition
✓ Seniors (7+ years) - Continues to meet nutritional needs
✓ Pregnant/Lactating Dogs - Supports reproduction without additional supplementation

Strategic Benefits¶

1. Eliminates Decision Complexity - No "which formula?" anxiety - No transition stress when life stage changes - Multi-dog households buy one product for all dogs

2. Operational Leverage - Single SKU = simpler inventory, quality control, batch testing - All marketing, proof infrastructure, vet validation applies to entire product line - No formulation changes means continuous proof data accumulation on one formula - Test-and-Release workflow economically sustainable — one product held for lab results, not 20+

3. Category Leadership Signal - Most competitors can't achieve Growth & Reproduction compliance - Signals technical sophistication and nutritional confidence - Harder standard = stronger proof of completeness

4. Lifetime Customer Value - Puppy customers (highest LTV segment) never need to switch brands - Natural retention through life stages - "Started my puppy on Protocol Raw, now she's 8 and still thriving"

5. Vet Endorsement Amplification - Vets can recommend one product for all patients - Simpler conversation: "Protocol Raw for all life stages" - Growth compliance removes puppy safety objection (major vet barrier)

6. Verification Enablement (The Hidden Moat) - Single-SKU makes genuine batch-level verification economically sustainable - Every batch tested, nothing ships unverified—operationally simple with one product - Multi-SKU competitors face 3-5× working capital increase to match (holding inventory across 20+ products while awaiting lab results) - This is why single-SKU isn't a limitation—it's what enables the core differentiation

Market Size Implications¶

Puppy Market Opportunity: - ~30% of premium dog food purchases are for puppies - Highest LTV segment (12+ months of rapid growth nutrition + lifetime brand loyalty) - Currently underserved by raw category (most brands offer adult-only or questionable puppy formulas)

Multi-Dog Household Opportunity: - ~40% of dog owners have multiple dogs - Often at different life stages - Single-formula approach eliminates "separate orders" friction

Competitive Moat Enhancement¶

Barriers to Competitor Response:

Formulation Challenge: Achieving Growth & Reproduction compliance requires higher nutrient density than Adult Maintenance. Most existing formulas can't be "upgraded" without reformulation.
Proof Data Reset: Reformulation means starting batch testing history from zero. We'll have 12-18 months of published data while they're rebuilding trust.
Ca:P Ratio Precision: Growth standard requires optimal calcium-to-phosphorus ratio (1.3-1.45:1) to prevent developmental orthopedic disease. Too high = DOD risk, too low = inadequate. This is hard to achieve without synthetic additives.
Vet Re-Education: Competitors would need to re-educate vets that their "now safe for puppies" formula is legitimate after years of adult-only positioning.

Why This Matters for Seed Raise¶

"All Life Stages" transforms the pitch:

Instead of: "We're a premium raw dog food brand targeting adult dog owners"

It becomes: "We're the only raw brand with verified Growth & Reproduction compliance, giving us exclusive access to the highest-LTV customer segment (puppy owners) while competitors are locked into adult-only positioning"

This means: - Larger TAM (includes 30% puppy market) - Higher LTV (customer for dog's entire life) - Stronger moat (formulation barrier + proof data accumulation) - Clearer category leadership (technical achievement competitors can't easily replicate)

The Proof Stack (Trust System)¶

Protocol Raw defines raw feeding by proof. Every batch is independently tested for pathogens before release, and the results are publicly published via QR code.

We operationalize trust through verifiable evidence:

Safety Hero Message (addresses 45% of consumer concerns)¶

Publish batch lab reports (QR on pack → public results portal)
Every batch tested before release via UKAS-accredited lab
Proof integrity: Hash-based file sealing for published PDFs, batch-to-QR signing, and public changelog to ensure immutable, auditable records

Nutrition Credibility Layer (removes 30% barrier)¶

Commission independent nutritional panel to verify FEDIAF Growth and Reproduction standard (all life stages); publish full PDF
Messaging timing: Claim moves from "designed to be complete" to "independently verified complete" only once panel is published
This is table stakes for premium raw, not a leading marketing message — it removes a blocker rather than creates differentiation

Process¶

DEFRA-approved facility, cold-chain audit trail, dispatch temperatures

Customer Outcomes¶

Early NPS & stool/transition feedback; publish anonymized summaries

Temperature Audits (Phased)¶

Phase A: Manual spot-checks using reusable loggers (10% deliveries/week)
Phase B: Automated 5% audit program once Operations Lead is in place
Statistical objective: Sample size sufficient to detect frozen-solid failure rate >5% with 95% confidence within one month
Dashboard metric: Track audit results, failure rates, and statistical confidence from Day 1

Competitive Moat (Why 36-42 Month Lead)¶

Protocol Raw's defensibility stems from three overlapping structural moats that create a combined 36-42 month competitive lag even if a rational competitor starts building today:

Proof Infrastructure (18-24 month time-locked trust capital)
All Life Stages Formulation (30-42 month reformulation + proof reset barrier)
AI-Native Operations (18-24 month build + operational discipline moat)

Our long-term advantage is this "Trust Moat" built on category leadership, operational discipline, and industry structural barriers—not just execution speed.

Protocol Raw is AI-native from Day 1, achieving 70-80% operational automation that would typically require a 5-10 person ops team. This creates extreme capital efficiency (10-19× vs traditional ops) while maintaining 42-47% contribution margins (vs 30-35% traditional CPG).

The moat is that the tech IS hard to replicate—in this category. Pet food founders are marketing-first, not systems-first. Building equivalent infrastructure would require hiring engineers, setting technical vision, and project managing for 12-18 months. Protocol Raw's founder can ship a fix in an afternoon; a competitor would need a quarterly roadmap. By the time a rational competitor could respond, Protocol Raw will have established category ownership through published proof data and vet endorsements that compound faster than tech can be copied.

Why The Moats Overlap and Compound¶

Proof Infrastructure (Moat 1) requires Operational Rigor (Moat 3): - Consistent batch testing demands systematic ops - Real-time monitoring prevents QA failures - AI-native automation enables proof at scale

All Life Stages (Moat 2) amplifies AI-Native Ops ROI (Moat 3): - Lifetime customer value justifies tech investment - No formula switching = sustained margins compound - Single SKU complexity = simplified automation

Formulation Complexity (Moat 2) protects Proof Infrastructure (Moat 1): - Growth & Reproduction is harder to verify consistently - Competitors with simpler formulas can't match claim credibility - Makes transparency harder to replicate

Result: Competitors must rebuild all three moats sequentially, creating 36-42 month minimum lag.

1. Industry Structural Barriers (PRIMARY MOAT)¶

Competitive window: 18-24 months, potentially longer

Why Most Competitors Won't Respond¶

The UK raw feeding market is dominated by traditional pet food operators, not technical organizations:

Existing Raw Brands (Bella & Duke, Paleo Ridge, Nutriment): - Not technical organizations: Founders are from pet food/wholesale backgrounds, not software/operations - Adult-only formulas: None have achieved Growth & Reproduction compliance (major barrier to puppy market) - Would require external engineering: Building an AI-native operational control system requires hiring contractors or full-time engineers—12-18 month project with unclear ROI - Reformulation risk: Upgrading to all-life-stages would require complete recipe overhaul + restart of proof data accumulation - Transparency exposes risk: Publishing batch reports retroactively might reveal QA inconsistencies they'd rather keep private - "Why are you suddenly transparent after 10 years?" - "What were you hiding before?" - Risk of historical batch failures becoming public - SKU complexity barrier: Bella & Duke has 20+ blends. We have 1. Test-and-Release on 20 SKUs requires 20× the lab coordination, working capital tied up in holds, and operational complexity - Cultural inertia: "We've been successful for 10 years without this, why change?"

Butternut Box: - Strategically locked out: Their entire brand is "gentle cooking preserves nutrients—raw is risky" - Launching "Butternut Raw" would: - Cannibalize their hero product (why pay premium for cooked if raw is safe?) - Require publicly reversing years of anti-raw messaging - Confuse brand equity (are they pro-cooking or pro-raw?) - Undermine vet relationships built on "cooked = safe" positioning - This is the Innovator's Dilemma—they're strategically locked in by their own success

New Entrants: - Would need to believe the category expansion thesis before we've proven it at scale (not obvious) - Would need a technical founder capable of building AI-native ops (rare in pet food) - Would need £50-100k to launch before seeing proof-of-concept (most won't take this risk) - By the time they see our success and decide to copy, we're 12-18 months ahead on proof data

Industry Reality: Pet Food is Not Tech-Forward¶

The pet food industry operates on: - Long decision cycles: Board approvals, supplier negotiations, facility certifications take 6-12 months - Risk aversion: "Prove it works first, then we'll consider copying" - Traditional operations: Most companies still use spreadsheets and manual processes—the idea of AI-native ops is foreign - Wholesale mindset: D2C frozen logistics is outside the core competency of most pet food companies

Base case assumption: No meaningful competitive response for 18-24 months

Even in the unlikely scenario that a well-funded competitor recognizes the opportunity and decides to respond: - Tech build: 6-9 months (if they have a technical founder or hire contractors) - Operational refinement: 3-6 months (Test-and-Release at scale has edge cases that take time to learn) - Proof data accumulation: 12-18 months to reach 100+ batch reports (can't be accelerated) - Vet relationship building: 12-18 months to secure 10-20 endorsements (requires clean data history)

Total lag: 18-24 months minimum, even if they started building today.

2. Category Leadership & Proof Data Accumulation (Compounding Moat)¶

By the time a competitor could launch a credible transparency platform, Protocol Raw will have established category ownership.

The Proof Data Flywheel¶

Timeline	Protocol Raw Position	Hypothetical Competitor (starts Month 12)
Month 6	20-30 batch reports published 3-5 vet endorsements 300-500 customers Seed raise validates model	Hasn't started yet
Month 12	50-100 batch reports published 5-10 vet endorsements 1,000-2,000 customers Referrals at 15-25% Category expansion thesis proving out	Competitor recognizes opportunity Begins building tech stack
Month 18	100-200 batch reports published 10-20 vet endorsements 3,000-7,000 customers Referrals at 25%+ "Verified raw" = Protocol Raw in consumer perception	Competitor launching platform (0-10 batch reports published)
Month 24	200+ batch reports published 15-25 vet endorsements 10,000-15,000 customers Referrals at 35%+ Category standard	Competitor publishing 20-50 batch reports Positioned as "also doing what Protocol Raw pioneered" Fighting uphill battle

Why Proof Data Creates an Unbridgeable Moat¶

Customer perception (Month 18): - "Protocol Raw has published 200 consecutive safety reports with zero released pathogen failures to date—they invented verified raw feeding" - New competitor: "Who are these guys? They only have 10 batch reports. Protocol Raw has 200."

Vet perception (Month 18): - "Protocol Raw has 12-18 months of clean safety data and 10-20 practice endorsements—they're the institutional standard" - New competitor: "We need 12 months of clean data before we can ask for endorsements. Protocol Raw is already the category leader."

Market perception (Month 24): - "Verified raw feeding" becomes shorthand for "Protocol Raw's approach" - Similar to how "organic certification" became a category standard - New competitors compared against Protocol Raw: "Why don't you publish 200+ batch reports like Protocol Raw does?"

Proof Data Cannot Be Accelerated¶

A competitor cannot: - ✓ Publish 100 batch reports on Day 1 (no historical data) - ✓ Fast-track vet endorsements (requires 6-12 months of clean data history before vets will publicly endorse) - ✓ Manufacture customer testimonials (requires real customers with real outcomes over 3-6 months)

Even if a competitor copies our tech perfectly, they're 18-24 months behind on the trust capital that actually drives conversions.

3. AI-Native Operational Control System (Execution Moat)¶

We're not a dog food company with technology. We're a technology company in the dog food market.

The system architecture is replicable—the capital efficiency advantage and operational discipline at scale are not.

What We've Built: Enterprise-Grade Operations Platform¶

Core Infrastructure: - Supabase/PostgreSQL: Operational database with sub-millisecond query performance, indexed for 100,000+ customers - Make.com: 15+ automation scenarios orchestrating order flow, batch release, 3PL integration, courier monitoring, cost capture - OpenAI GPT-4o Vision: AI-powered parsing of lab results and invoices (>95% accuracy) - Customer.io: Event-driven lifecycle communication triggered by operational state changes - Real-time monitoring: Slack alerts, SLO tracking, exception handling with <15 minute response time

Production-Grade Capabilities:

1. Order Ingestion (SOP 00) - Shopify webhook → Supabase Edge Function (<200ms processing) - Automatic customer deduplication and order normalization - Retry logic with exponential backoff and dead-letter queue - SLO monitoring every 5 minutes (alerts if orders missing from database)

2. Batch Production & Quality Control (SOP 01, 0R) - QR code generation at production (before lab clearance) - AI vision parsing of lab results (OpenAI GPT-4o) - Automatic batch release when safety tests pass - Cryptographic proof infrastructure: Hash-sealed PDFs, immutable audit trails, public proof pages - Customers can verify batch safety via QR scan

3. FEFO Inventory Allocation (SOP INV-01 v3.0) - First Expired, First Out compliance (regulatory requirement) - Split-batch allocation capability (can fulfill 12kg order from multiple batches) - Full batch-to-customer traceability (recall-ready from Day 1) - Saves £700-1,400/year through waste minimization

4. 3PL Export Automation (SOP 0X v3.0) - CSV export every 15 minutes (capacity: 4,800 orders/day) - Idempotency pattern prevents duplicate sends - Retry logic with Slack escalation - No bottleneck until 140,000+ customers

5. Weather-Based Pack Optimization (SOP PACK) - OpenWeatherMap API integration for delivery forecasting - Automatic PCM (phase change material) calculation by risk level - Saves £2-3 per box through rightsized thermal protection - Temperature logger flagging for statistical audit (5% sample rate)

6. Real-Time Cost Tracking (SOP 05) - AI invoice parsing (lab results, co-packer invoices, 3PL invoices) - Automatic COGS and CPD capture per order - Real-time unit economics (not monthly retrospective) - Metabase dashboards always current

7. Courier Monitoring & Exception Handling (SOP 02) - DPD webhook integration for real-time tracking - Automatic customer notifications (dispatch, out for delivery, delivered) - Proactive exception handling (delivery failed → immediate email + Slack alert) - Internal escalation after 2 failed delivery attempts

Operational Metrics (Production-Ready): - Order processing: <200ms (webhook to database) - Allocation: Instant (triggered on batch release) - Export: Every 15 minutes (4,800 orders/day capacity) - Cost capture: Real-time (AI parsing >95% accuracy) - Customer notifications: Event-driven (instant)

Capital Efficiency: The Hidden Moat¶

Traditional Pet Food Operations (100,000 customers): - Full-stack engineering team: £200k+/year - Operations team (3-4 people): £150k+/year - Customer service team: £120k+/year - Total: £470k+/year in headcount

Protocol Raw (100,000 customers): - Make.com: £3,600/year - Supabase: £6,000/year - OpenAI API: £18,000/year - Customer.io: £12,000/year - Other tooling: £5,000/year - Total: £45k/year in tooling (+ 1-2 ops team)

Capital efficiency advantage: 10-19× vs. traditional operations

At 100,000 customers, this translates to: - £425k/year cost advantage - 42-47% contribution margin vs 30-35% for traditional CPG - Margin structure resembling SaaS, not food manufacturing

Scale Mechanics: Built for 100,000+ From Day 1¶

Database Performance (Already Indexed): - 1,000 customers: <5ms query time - 10,000 customers: <20ms query time - 100,000 customers: <50ms query time (with monthly partitioning) - No re-architecture required at any scale

Automation Capacity: - Current: 500 operations/month (free tier) - 1,000 customers: 5,000 ops/month (£29/mo) - 10,000 customers: 50,000 ops/month (£99/mo) - 100,000 customers: 500,000 ops/month (£299/mo) - Linear cost scaling, no step-function increases

3PL Export Capacity: - Current: 50 orders per batch, every 15 minutes - Maximum: 4,800 orders/day (200/hour × 24 hours) - 100,000 customers = 3,500 orders/day = 73% capacity utilization - No bottleneck until 140,000+ customers

Storage & Processing: - Lab PDFs, invoices, proof pages: ~80GB/year at 100k customers - Within Supabase free tier (100GB) - AI parsing cost: £1,500/month at 100k customers - Storage and AI are non-constraints

Why This Creates a Structural Advantage¶

Competitors can copy our formulation in 6-12 months.

Competitors CANNOT: - ✓ Replicate 18-24 months of published proof data - ✓ Build AI-native ops infrastructure (requires technical founder + 6-12 months) - ✓ Achieve 10-19× capital efficiency (requires architectural decisions from Day 1) - ✓ Match contribution margins (our 42-47% vs their 30-35%)

By the time a rational competitor decides to respond: - We have 18-24 months of proof data (cannot be accelerated) - We have 10-20 vet endorsements (requires clean data history) - We have 70-80% automation (competitors hiring 5-10 person ops teams) - We have 25-35% referral rates (network effects compounding)

The operations platform is a moat because it creates: 1. Time advantage: 18-24 month build + proof accumulation lag 2. Cost advantage: 10-19× capital efficiency enables better unit economics 3. Scale advantage: Can reach 100k+ customers without re-architecture 4. Margin advantage: 42-47% contribution vs 30-35% traditional CPG

This is why we say: "We're a tech company that happens to sell dog food."

The Operational Discipline Moat (Activates at Scale)¶

Building the system took 3-6 months. Running it at 95%+ frozen-solid delivery with viable unit economics is the real challenge:

Learned capabilities (can't be copied from documentation): - How to handle courier exceptions at scale (which failures require refunds vs. reshipments vs. just reassurance) - How to negotiate 3PL contracts with SLA penalties and volume step-downs - How to optimize packaging for seasonal temperature swings (winter vs. summer gel pack ratios) - How to manage Test-and-Release working capital (cash tied up in held inventory during lab clearance) - How to handle edge cases: lab delays during Christmas, courier strikes, 3PL system outages, QR code printing errors - How to balance automation (efficiency) with customer experience (when to override AI and manually intervene)

These capabilities are built through: - 500-1,000+ shipments of operational learning - 20-50 failure modes encountered and solved - 6-12 months of 3PL and courier relationship management - Real customer feedback on transition quality, stool issues, freezer management

Competitors can copy the Make.com workflows, but they can't copy 12-18 months of operational muscle memory.

4. Network Effects & Referral Economics (Defensive Moat)¶

Once activated (Month 12+), this creates a 30-40% CAC advantage that widens over time.

The Vet Strategy: Flipping Blockers to Advocates¶

Current Reality: Vets Are Active Blockers

Most UK vets actively advise against raw feeding: - The British Veterinary Association recommends against raw diets - NHS guidance flags pathogen risks to households - Standard vet training emphasises FEDIAF-compliant commercial diets (kibble) - When a customer says "I'm thinking about raw," vets typically say "I'd advise against it"

This is not neutral skepticism—it's institutional opposition. Vets are a 15%+ conversion barrier because raw-curious buyers ask their vet before switching, and the vet says no.

Why Protocol Raw Changes the Conversation:

The reason vets advise against raw is the bacterial risk with no verification. Protocol Raw provides what they'd need to reconsider:

Independent pathogen testing: Salmonella, Listeria, Enterobacteriaceae—the specific pathogens vets worry about
UKAS accreditation: Clinical-grade lab standards, not self-certification
Published batch data: Evidence they can review themselves, not brand claims
FEDIAF All Life Stages: Regulatory compliance for puppies and pregnant/lactating dogs

We're not asking vets to "trust raw." We're providing the clinical evidence that lets them make a different recommendation.

The Institutional Flip Strategy:

Each vet endorsement is a local market unlock: - A vet who endorses Protocol Raw stops being a blocker and becomes a referral source - Vet-referred customers convert 30-40% higher and retain better (Box-2 rates 5-10% higher) - Each endorsing vet recommends to 10-50 clients over 12 months

Vet endorsement timeline: - Month 4: Develop "Vet Validation Pack" (safety summary + lab reports + nutritional panel + FEDIAF certification) - Month 6: Present to 10-15 London practices → secure 3-5 early flips - Month 12: 5-10 practices actively endorsing (blockers → advocates in those postcodes) - Month 18: 10-20 practices → vet channel becomes material acquisition source - Month 24: 15-25 practices → conference presentations, KOL credibility

Why This Is Hard to Replicate:

Vet endorsements require 6-12 months of clean safety data before vets will publicly endorse. They need to see consistent negative pathogen results across dozens of batches. A competitor launching in Month 12-15 starts with zero vet credibility while Protocol Raw has 50-100 published batch reports and 5-10 existing endorsements.

Each month of lag compounds: Our 15th vet endorsement is easier than our 5th (social proof among vets), while a competitor's 1st endorsement is still a cold conversation.

Referral Economics (CAC Compression)¶

Phase	Protocol Raw Referral %	Blended CAC	Competitor (12 months behind)	CAC Advantage
Phase A (0-6 mo)	15-25%	£100-120 → £70-90	Not launched yet	N/A
Phase B (7-18 mo)	25%	£70-85	0-10% referrals (just launched)	15-20% lower
Phase C (19-36 mo)	35%	£60-75	10-15% referrals	30-40% lower

With 35% referrals at £0 CAC, Protocol Raw can: - Outspend competitors on paid acquisition (£75 blended CAC vs. their £100-110) - Maintain higher contribution margins (more cash to reinvest) - Scale faster (better unit economics → more capital for growth)

This CAC advantage compounds: More customers → more referrals → lower blended CAC → more budget for acquisition → faster growth → [loop accelerates]

5. Immutable Proof Infrastructure (Trust Capital)¶

The technical implementation is replicable—the trust capital accumulated is not.

Proof System Architecture¶

Batch-to-QR linking: - Each batch gets unique batch_id → proof_url generated → QR code printed on packaging - Proof page hosted at protocol-raw.com/proof/[batch_id] with lab report PDF, test date, pathogen results, batch metadata

Cryptographic integrity: - Lab report PDFs hash-sealed on upload (SHA256 checksum in batches.lab_report_hash) - Customers can verify file hasn't been altered by checking hash - Public changelog tracks any updates to batch records (prevents silent edits)

Multi-channel proof delivery: 1. Order confirmation email: Sets expectations that proof will be available once batch is released 2. Batch release notification (optional): Email when batch clears QA, linking to proof page 3. Dispatch confirmation: Tracking URL + reminder that proof is accessible via QR/SMS 4. Delivery-day SMS: Primary touchpoint—tracking URL + proof URL delivered same day as package 5. In-box proof insert: Physical QR card inside every box for tactile verification

Event bridge to Customer.io: - All operational events (order_placed, batch_released, shipment_dispatched, out_for_delivery, delivered) flow from ops_events → Customer.io - Enables sophisticated lifecycle comms without manual intervention

Why This Matters¶

Competitors can copy: - ✓ Batch testing (legally required anyway) - ✓ Publishing PDFs on a website - ✓ Generating QR codes

Competitors cannot copy: - ✓ 12-18 months of published proof data (200+ batch reports by Month 18) - ✓ Customer trust capital from seeing "200 consecutive reports with zero failures" - ✓ Vet relationships built by sharing 12 months of clean data - ✓ Category ownership of "verified raw" in consumer perception

Customer perception (Month 18): - "Protocol Raw doesn't just test—they let me verify every batch myself with cryptographic proof. This is institutional-grade transparency." - New competitor: "They're trying to copy Protocol Raw's approach, but they only have 10 batch reports vs. Protocol Raw's 200."

Moat Summary (Investor Framing)¶

Why This Business is Defensible¶

Protocol Raw's moat is built on three structural barriers that protect the business for 18-24 months:

Industry Structural Barriers (18-24 month window):
Existing raw brands lack technical capability and cultural willingness to adopt transparency
Butternut Box is strategically locked out (transparency contradicts brand positioning)
Pet food industry is not tech-forward—long decision cycles, risk aversion, traditional ops
Even rational competitors face 18-24 month lag on tech build + proof data + vet relationships
Proof Data & Category Leadership (Compounding from Month 12):
By Month 18, Protocol Raw will have 10-20× more published proof data than any new entrant
"Verified raw" becomes shorthand for "Protocol Raw's approach" in consumer perception
New competitors positioned as followers, not category leaders
Network Effects (Defensive from Month 12+):
Vet endorsements create 30-40% CAC advantage that widens over time
Referral flywheel (35% of new customers) creates sustainable acquisition efficiency
Each month of lag compounds—competitor starting in Month 12 faces 18+ month gap on trust capital

Critical Success Requirements¶

✓ Month 6: 70%+ Box-2, £20-24 CPD, 300-500 customers, 3-5 vet endorsements → Seed raise validates model
✓ Month 12: 50-100 batch reports, 5-10 vet endorsements, referrals at 15-25% → Category expansion thesis proving out
✓ Month 18: 100-200 batch reports, 10-20 vet endorsements, referrals at 25%+ → Category leadership established
✓ Month 24: 200+ batch reports, 15-25 vet endorsements, referrals at 35% → Defensible category standard

If we hit these milestones, the moat becomes truly defensible—not because the tech is hard to copy, but because the trust capital and network effects are impossible to accelerate.

Competitive Threat Assessment¶

Threat	Likelihood	Timeline	Defense
Bella & Duke adds verification	Medium (35-45%)	18-24 months	20+ SKU complexity makes batch-level testing operationally prohibitive; no tech DNA means 12-18 month build; if they copy language without substance, validates our positioning
Butternut launches raw line	Very Low (5%)	N/A	Strategically locked out—would destroy brand equity; cooking IS their verification
Well-funded copycat (UK)	Low-Med (30%)	18-24 months	Tech replicable in theory, but no tech-first founders in UK pet food; 18-24 month lag on proof data + vets
Technical founder (different geo)	Medium (50%)	12-18 months	Different market; potential acquisition target
No significant competitive response	Low (20-30%)	N/A	B&D success makes category more attractive; competitive response increasingly likely

Bella & Duke: Partner in Category Expansion, Not Direct Competitor

B&D's success (20%+ growth, 60% raw-first-timers) validates the demand elasticity Protocol Raw depends on. Their approach and ours are complementary:

Dimension	Bella & Duke	Protocol Raw
Strategy	Reframe perception	Remove need for trust
Value prop	"Minimally processed, natural"	"Independently verified safe"
Target customer	Philosophy-responsive	Evidence-responsive
Barrier addressed	Brand perception	Safety anxiety
Growth driver	Marketing effectiveness	Proof infrastructure

Why coexistence is likely: - Different customer psychographics (narrative-responsive vs. evidence-responsive) - B&D's SKU complexity (20+ products) makes batch-level verification operationally impractical - Their growth validates our TAM without directly competing for our target cohort - Category expansion benefits both—neither needs to steal share

The real risk from B&D is not competition—it's validation without differentiation. If customers believe B&D's reframing is sufficient, verification may not unlock additional demand. This is the core falsification test for Protocol Raw's thesis.

Critical Threat: Bella & Duke Launches Verification

Most likely competitive response: B&D recognizes verification's appeal and launches their own transparency platform.

Why this is harder than it looks:

1. No tech-first DNA: - Pet food founders are marketing-first, not systems-first - Building verification infrastructure requires hiring engineers (they have none) - 12-18 months of project management to reach production - Protocol Raw's founder ships a fix in an afternoon; B&D would need a quarterly roadmap

2. 20+ SKUs makes genuine verification operationally prohibitive:

Protocol Raw tests every batch. Nothing ships without verification. For B&D to match this: - Every batch of every SKU needs UKAS lab testing before release - 20+ products × multiple batches/month = massive testing volume - At £150-200 per pathogen panel, costs compound across SKU range - This isn't a bolt-on feature—it's a fundamental operational redesign

3. Working capital explodes:

Protocol Raw's single-SKU Test-and-Release workflow: - Produce batch → Hold for 24-48hr lab results → Release or reject → Ship - Working capital tied up: 1-2 days of inventory across one product

B&D's multi-SKU equivalent: - Produce batches across 20+ products → Hold ALL inventory for lab results → Release or reject each - Working capital tied up: 1-2 days of inventory across entire product range - 3-5× increase in inventory holding costs vs. current ship-on-production model - Cash flow impact measured in hundreds of thousands annually

4. Fulfillment process completely changes:

Current B&D model: Production → Inventory → Ship on order Verification model: Production → Hold → Test → Release → Ship

Every warehouse process, every pick list, every dispatch workflow would need redesigning. Their 3PL relationships, WMS integrations, inventory management—all rebuilt around "nothing ships unverified."

Two possible B&D responses:

Copy the language, not the substance: B&D adds "tested" or "verified" to marketing without batch-level infrastructure
Our response: This validates our positioning. When they say "we test too," customers ask "where's the QR code? where's the batch report?" B&D can't answer. We can. Copying language without substance exposes them when customers compare.
Build genuine verification: B&D commits to batch-level testing across 20+ SKUs
Our response: The operational and working capital burden makes this economically irrational for a 20+ SKU business. They'd need to either (a) dramatically reduce SKU count, destroying their product-market fit, or (b) accept massively increased costs that Protocol Raw doesn't face. Our single-SKU model isn't a limitation—it's what makes verification sustainable.

Why verification doesn't make sense for Butternut Box:

Cooking already addresses the bacterial fear. "Gently cooked to keep it safe" IS their verification—heat treatment is the proof of pathogen elimination. Adding lab testing would be messaging redundancy. Their strategic response is nutritional ("we're just as good as raw") not safety ("we test too").

Defense playbook: 1. Speed to category ownership — establish "verified raw" before competitors can react 2. Proof data accumulation — 200+ batch reports by Month 24 creates insurmountable trust capital 3. Vet endorsement moat — vets won't endorse based on marketing language; they'll endorse based on data history 4. Let them copy the words — if B&D says "verified," it validates that verification matters; customers will compare substance

Action: Execute fast. Let competitors validate the category while we own the infrastructure.

Why £500M+ Outcome is Rational¶

The Trust Moat makes the Growth Case (£86-104M ARR, £602m-£1.04B illustrative enterprise value) credible because:

✓ Category expansion is real: Transparency unlocks the £500M raw-curious segment (validated by Butternut's success proving TAM exists)
✓ All Life Stages unlocks puppy market: Growth & Reproduction compliance gives exclusive access to £240M premium puppy segment competitors can't easily reach
✓ The moat is durable: 18-24 month competitive window + formulation barrier + compounding network effects create defensible category leadership
✓ Capital efficiency creates margin advantage: 10-19× operational leverage vs traditional CPG enables 42-47% contribution margins (vs 30-35% industry standard)
✓ Economics improve with scale: Referral flywheel + vet endorsements drive blended CAC from £100 → £60, while CPD drops from £24 → £8, creating contribution margin expansion
✓ Lifetime customer capture: Puppy customers stay for dog's entire life (no formula switching = no churn opportunity for competitors)
✓ Tech company margin structure: AI-native operations create SaaS-like contribution margins in a food manufacturing business
✓ First-mover advantage compounds: By Month 24, Protocol Raw = "verified raw" in consumer perception, with 200+ batch reports and 15-25 vet endorsements creating a trust capital moat competitors cannot replicate through technology alone

At 100,000 customers: - Contribution margin: 42-47% (vs 30-35% traditional CPG) - Annual cost advantage: £425k vs traditional ops (10-19× capital efficiency) - ARR: £86-104M - Illustrative enterprise value (7-10× ARR): £602m-£1.04B

We're not competing for 3-5% of a £300M market—we're capturing 11-14% of the £750M+ category we help create (including premium puppy segment), with margin structure resembling a SaaS company in a food manufacturing business. This is why strategic acquirers (Nestl×, Mars) would pay premium multiples - they're buying technology and category infrastructure, not just a dog food brand.

The moat is real. The competitive window is longer than initially modeled. The business is defensible.

Key Barrier
Integration complexity + domain knowledge
Engineering + operational discipline
Make.com expertise + exception handling
3PL contracts + failure mode testing

Market & TAM (Category Expansion Strategy)¶

UK Dog Food Market Structure (2025)¶

Total market: £2.5-3.0B
Premium segment: £800M (30% of total)
Current raw: £255M (32% of premium)
Fresh/cooked (Butternut Box et al): £305M (38% of premium)
Combined raw-aligned premium: £560M

The Clinical Safety Barrier: What Actually Blocks Conversion¶

The #1 Reason UK Dog Owners Don't Feed Raw: Fear of Bacteria

Market research consistently identifies the same hierarchy of objections:

Bacterial fear (dominant barrier): Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria—risk to children, elderly, immunocompromised family members. Contamination of kitchens, bowls, surfaces.
Vet/NHS guidance: Most UK vets actively recommend against raw feeding. The British Veterinary Association advises against it. The NHS flags pathogen risks. This is the medical establishment saying "don't do this."
Cost and convenience: More expensive than kibble, requires freezer space, harder to portion and prepare.
Nutritional anxiety: Fear of "getting it wrong"—calcium/phosphorus balance, right mix of bone/organ/muscle.
Social norms: Kibble is seen as the "normal" and "responsible" choice. Raw is viewed as niche or risky.

Critical insight: The #1 barrier is not vague "trust"—it's specific clinical fear of named pathogens, institutionally reinforced by the medical establishment.

Why Traditional Raw Brands Can't Solve This:

Traditional raw brands (Natures Menu, Natural Instinct) respond to bacterial fear with: - "Trust us, it's safe" - "Raw is natural/ancestral" - "Dogs have different digestive systems"

None of this addresses the actual objection. The customer isn't asking for reassurance—they're asking for evidence. Traditional brands are stagnating (-8% to 0% growth) because they're answering the wrong question.

Why Bella & Duke Is Growing (And What It Proves):

B&D reframed raw as "minimally processed, natural nutrition"—softer, less clinical, more aspirational. Result: 20%+ growth, 60% raw-first-timers.

This proves raw demand is elastic to positioning. But B&D still doesn't answer the bacterial question—they just make it feel less scary. The 86% "never go back" retention suggests that once customers try raw and see results, the fear fades. The barrier is starting, not staying.

The Cohort Protocol Raw Targets:

The 40% of premium buyers who haven't converted via B&D's reframing are the evidence-responsive cohort: - They've heard the reframing; it's not enough - They need to see "Salmonella: Not Detected" with a UKAS certificate - They need something they can show their vet, their partner, their family - They need "responsible" redefined as "verified," not "trusted"

Protocol Raw's answer to the #1 barrier:

"Every batch independently tested for Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli. Results published before release. Scan the QR code—see for yourself."

This is "proof, not promises" made concrete against the specific clinical fear that blocks conversion.

Butternut Box Validates the TAM¶

Butternut Box grew to £150M revenue (2024) by solving the same problem differently.

Their positioning: "Real food, gently cooked to keep it safe" - Translation: Raw nutrition without raw risk - Solution: Remove pathogens through cooking - Target: Raw-curious premium buyers blocked by bacterial fear

Critical insight: These £150M customers did not reject raw feeding. They rejected unverified raw feeding.

They settled for the "cooking solution" because the "verification solution" didn't exist.

Evidence these are raw-aligned customers: - Already abandoned processed kibble - Committed to species-appropriate philosophy - Paying premium for "real food" - Using freezer logistics and fresh feeding rituals - Just need proof that raw is safe

Butternut Box's £150M proves: 1. Raw-curious buyers exist at scale 2. Removing safety barrier unlocks significant revenue 3. Premium pricing accepted for verified safety 4. TAM for "safe raw alternative" is real, not hypothetical

Our Positioning vs. Butternut Box¶

Same customer psychographic, different solution:

Aspect	Butternut Box	Protocol Raw
Problem addressed	Raw seems risky	Raw seems risky
Solution	Cook it (removes risk)	Verify it (proves safety)
Nutritional claim	"Gently cooked preserves nutrition"	Raw preserves all nutrients (no heat damage)
Safety mechanism	Cooking sterilizes	Independent testing + published proof
Evidence	"Trust us, cooking works"	"Verify yourself - QR to lab results"
Philosophy	Fresh food convenience	Species-appropriate carnivore diet

The conversion case is strong because Butternut Box customers have already: - ✓ Committed to premium pricing (£150-180/month) - ✓ Accepted freezer/fridge logistics - ✓ Adopted fresh feeding rituals - ✓ Rejected processed kibble - ✓ Embraced species-appropriate philosophy

They just settled for cooking because verification didn't exist.

Our message to them:

"You chose Butternut Box because you believe in real food but raw seemed risky. We've solved the safety problem through independent testing—every batch verified before release, results published via QR code. You get the raw nutrition you originally wanted, with proof of safety you can verify yourself."

The Category Expansion Thesis¶

Current state (2025 baseline): - Raw market: £255M (stalled at Clinical Safety Barrier) - Fresh market: £150M (Butternut Box - captured raw-curious through cooking) - Raw-curious premium kibble: £100-200M (blocked by bacterial fear, haven't switched yet) - Total raw-aligned premium opportunity: £505-£605M

If verification removes the Clinical Safety Barrier:

Phase 1: Current raw feeders remain/grow - Safety-anxious subset converts to premium verified (20-30%) - Category resumes growth as clinical barrier removed - £255M baseline maintained + modest growth

Phase 2: Fresh market conversion
- Butternut Box customers (£150M) are raw-curious buyers who settled for cooking - Verification solution enables conversion to nutritionally superior raw - 30-50% convert over 3-5 years as proof accumulates and vet endorsements build - Conversion potential: £45-75M

Phase 3: Unlocked raw-curious premium - Currently on super-premium kibble (Orijen, Acana, Canagan) - Researching raw but blocked by safety + vet disapproval - Verification + vet endorsements remove dual barriers - 20-30% of segment converts as category becomes "verified safe" - Conversion potential: £20-60M

Total category expansion:

Scenario	Multiplier	Current Raw (£255M)	Expanded Verified Raw Market	Rationale
Conservative	1.5×	£255M	£383M	Raw resumes growth, modest fresh conversion (20%), limited kibble unlock
Expected	2.0×	£255M	£510M	Strong fresh conversion (30-40%), meaningful kibble unlock (25%)
Growth	2.5×	£255M	£638M	Major fresh conversion (40-50%), significant kibble unlock (30%), vet endorsements accelerate
Best Case	3.0×+	£255M	£765M+	Fresh market substantially converts, raw becomes mainstream premium format

This expansion is analogous to UK organic food growth: - Organic certification removed the "is this really organic?" barrier - Market expanded from £1.2B (2004) to £3.1B (2023) through sustained growth - Transparent verification unlocked category expansion by converting anxious premium buyers

Our Positioning in the Expanded Market¶

Protocol Raw aims to capture 11-14% of the expanded verified raw market by establishing transparent verification as the new category standard.

Market share context: - NOT competing for 11-14% of existing £255M raw market (would be £28-36M, incremental) - Capturing 11-14% of expanded £510-638M verified raw category (includes fresh conversion + unlocked kibble buyers) - Creating category leadership position as "verified raw" becomes synonymous with Protocol Raw

Revenue implications by scenario:

Scenario	Expanded Market	Protocol Raw Share (11-14%)	ARR Target
Conservative (1.5×)	£383M	11-14%	£42-54M
Expected (2.0×)	£510M	11-14%	£56-71M
Growth (2.5×)	£638M	11-14%	£70-89M
Best Case (3.0×)	£765M	11-14%	£84-107M

The Growth Case (£70-89M ARR) is the primary planning scenario, supported by: 1. Butternut Box proves £150M TAM for "safe raw alternative" 2. Raw market stagnation proves trust barrier exists 3. Verification analogy (organic food) validates 2.5× expansion potential 4. All Life Stages formulation unlocks £240M puppy segment simultaneously 5. Vet endorsement flywheel accelerates conversion (removes authority barrier)

UK Premium SAM & SOM¶

Serviceable Available Market (Dogs): 540,000 dogs (2025), growing at 9% CAGR to 830,000 by 2030. This segment prioritizes quality and safety over price and represents the raw-curious premium cohort.

London SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market, Y1-2): 80,000-120,000 dogs in high-density affluent postcodes (SW, W, NW, N London). High concentration of premium buyers, early adopters, and vet practices for endorsement building.

Revenue Implication: At Growth Case expansion (2.5×), verified raw market reaches £638M. Protocol Raw capturing 11-14% = £70-89M ARR, consistent with £86-104M Year 5 target range (includes some upside from Best Case momentum).

Conservative Plan Can Still Fund¶

Critical constraint: The capital plan, hiring roadmap, and contribution ramp must remain viable under the Conservative Case (1.5× expansion, £383M market, £42-54M ARR).

If expansion is slower than Expected: - Phase A-B-C targets remain achievable (focus on existing raw + partial fresh conversion) - Profitability reached with lower absolute revenue but maintained unit economics - Seed and Series A rounds justified by proven retention + category leadership positioning - Exit value remains attractive (£294-540M at 7-10× ARR multiple)

We model Growth Case as ambition, Conservative Case as dependency floor.

The business must succeed if verification drives only modest expansion (1.5×), but has significant upside if thesis fully materializes (2.0-2.5× expansion).

Pricing & Unit Economics (Target Ranges)¶

ARPU Target (Blended, ex-VAT)¶

Realised ARPU Target: £1,040 annually

Theoretical ARPU at perfect 4-week cadence: £1,180 (13 boxes × £90.83). The £1,040 target accounts for cadence drift (~11.5 boxes/year due to holidays, skipped weeks, delayed reorders).

Note: The Financial Model's LTV of £1,040 is a different calculation — it uses theoretical ARPU (£1,180) multiplied by average lifespan (10.5 months ÷ 12). The identity £1,040 = £1,040 is coincidental, arising from different inputs producing the same output.

ARPU Sensitivity:
If average reorder frequency drifts from 4 weeks to 6 weeks due to travel, seasonality, or switching behavior, realized ARPU may land at £750-£850. We model conservatively and track cohort reorder cadence closely.

Pricing Bands (Fixed, Launch Pricing)¶

Starter (8 kg): £74.17 ex-VAT / £89 inc-VAT
Core (12 kg): £90.83 ex-VAT / £109 inc-VAT
Premium (16 kg): £107.50 ex-VAT / £129 inc-VAT

Rationale: Prices locked at top of band to maximize Phase A contribution (CPD £20-24 requires premium pricing). £109 for 12kg core SKU positions at premium tier while £20 calculator discount (→£89) achieves Butternut Box price parity for acquisition. Psychological pricing under £90/£110/£130 thresholds. At 4-week reorder frequency: 13 boxes × £90.83 = £1,180 ARPU (13.5% above £1,040 target).

Note on VAT: All ARPU and ARR figures throughout this plan are stated ex-VAT unless otherwise noted. UK VAT (20%) applies at point of sale; customer-facing prices include VAT.

Cost Targets & Revised COGS Path¶

Co-pack (independent reality, first 18 months)¶

Pilot and early Phase A: £4.10 to £4.90 per kg
Late Phase A: £3.70 to £4.50 per kg
Phase B: £3.20 to £4.00 per kg
Phase C to D: £2.60 to £3.40 per kg at national scale

Independent benchmarking indicates early COGS are 40-60% higher than mature state. The model reflects this in contribution timing.

COGS Stop-Rule¶

If landed COGS exceeds £4.50 per kg at Month 4: - Pause scale - Actions: Renegotiate co-pack terms, confirm whether Test-and-Release admin fee is separately itemized, review formulation inputs for cost-neutral substitutions, and consider holding price at the top of the band

Make vs. Buy Review Gate¶

Formal review at end of Phase B (Month 18+) with criteria: - QA control capability - Test-and-Release throughput constraints - Co-packer pricing power vs. internal production economics - Capital requirements for vertical integration

Logistics (Critical Risk — Revised Trajectory with Explicit Mitigation)¶

Phase A (Months 0-6): London Calibration & Founder Fulfillment¶

Initial Normalized CPD: £22-24/box (Cash CPD: £20-22)
Target Normalized CPD: £19-21 by Month 6 (Cash CPD: £17-19)
Reflects London-calibrated packaging (48h buffer/Cool spec), standard Day 1 courier rates (£11.86 baseline), and imputed labor costs.
15% reduction target requires optimization of courier rates (target £10.30) and material volume savings.

Phase B (Months 7-18): 3PL Transition & Density Optimization → Target £14-18/box¶

Transition from founder fulfillment to 3PL (Normalized CPD becomes Cash CPD).
CPD trajectory requires balancing London density benefits with the lower density of City 2 (Expansion Penalty).

Phase C (Months 19-36): National hub-and-spoke model → Target £8-12/box¶

Assumes 2-3 regional hubs and pallet trunking; reflects national variability.

Phase A Fulfillment Strategy and Imputed Labor Costs¶

During Phase A (Months 0-6), fulfillment will be handled directly by the founder. While this preserves cash, we employ "shadow accounting" to ensure unit economics reflect the true, sustainable cost structure required for Phase B (3PL or hired labor).

Imputed Labor Cost: Based on the operational target of a 9-minute pack time and a benchmark loaded labor rate of £15/hour, we impute a labor cost of £2.25 per box.

Dual Metrics Reporting: We will track two CPD metrics: - Cash CPD: Actual cash outlay (used for runway management). - Normalized CPD: Fully loaded cost including imputed labor (used for strategic planning and investor reporting).

All CPD targets, Stop-Rules, and Contribution calculations in this plan are based on the Normalized CPD.

Density Creation Levers (Explicit Execution Plan)¶

To break the CPD circular dependency (need volume for low CPD, need low CPD for sustainable acquisition):

Hard delivery windows by micro-zone: North London only on Tuesdays/Thursdays; South London Wed/Fri
Waitlist gating by postcode: Prioritize sign-ups in target routes to artificially concentrate density before opening adjacent zones
Referral boosts for route concentration: £20 credit (vs. £10 standard) for referrals within same postcode sector to cluster customers geographically
Early adopter clusters: Partner with 2-3 dog walking groups or vet practices in target postcodes for coordinated onboarding waves (30-50 customers launching same week)

CPD Stop-Rules with Pre-Written Actions¶

Checkpoint	Threshold	Actions
Month 3	Normalized CPD not trending below £22	Pause scale; implement density levers 1-2 above; test packaging cost reduction; aggressively pursue courier discount negotiation.
Month 6	Normalized CPD >£21 (15% reduction not achieved)	Restrict delivery zones to highest-density postcodes only; renegotiate 3PL/courier terms; consider waitlist model to build density before expansion.
Month 12	Normalized CPD not trending toward £14-18	Restrict expansion; focus exclusively on London density (pause City 2); test hyper-local carriers with pre-negotiated pilot terms; formalize carrier SLAs with penalties.

Carrier & Packaging SLAs¶

Convert CPD targets into explicit contractual clauses:

Maximum depot dwell time: 4 hours
Cold-chain handoff protocol: Temperature log transfer at each touchpoint
Probe placement rules in audit boxes: Center of load, surrounded by product
Penalties linked to frozen-solid KPI: £5 credit per failed delivery; carrier covers refund cost if failure rate >3%

Contribution Targets (Steady-state)¶

Contribution (12 kg - Normalized)¶

Phase A: £24 to £28 per box (Based on core 12kg SKU at £109 inc-VAT as Normalized CPD optimizes from £24 toward £19)
Phase B: £26 to £32 per box as COGS steps down and CPD trends toward £14-18
Phase C: £30 to £36 per box at steady state (CPD trends toward £8-12)

Pricing locked at £109 (12kg), £89 (8kg), £129 (16kg) inc-VAT to maximize Phase A contribution while COGS normalizes. This delivers £90.83 ex-VAT per 12kg box, supporting £1,180 annual ARPU at 4-week reorder frequency (13.5% above £1,040 target).

Cash Conversion Cycle & Lab Latency¶

Critical Working Capital Constraint¶

Test-and-Release means inventory is frozen capital while awaiting UKAS lab clearance.

Modeling Requirements¶

Lab turnaround time: 2-5 days (variability impacts working capital and lead time promises)
WIP holding cost: Cold storage fees during hold period
Stockout risk: If lab results delayed during high-demand period (e.g., Christmas), inability to release batches creates revenue loss

Dashboard Metrics (From Month 1)¶

Lab turnaround SLA: Target 3 days; flag if >4 days
WIP cash tied up: £ value of inventory awaiting clearance
Batch release cadence: Days from production to dispatch
Lab partner reliability: % of batches cleared within SLA

Mitigation¶

Negotiate lab SLA with penalties for delays >4 days
Build 1-week buffer stock once volume allows (Month 9+)
Maintain backup lab partnership for contingency

Go-to-Market (London Pilot; Geo-focused)¶

Channel¶

Meta (Facebook & Instagram) for visual proof + Google for intent capture; London-centric targeting (HNW postcodes/dog density)

Primary Audience¶

Premium kibble/fresh buyers (Butternut Box, Orijen customers) and ex-raw feeders, NOT existing raw feeding enthusiasts

Message Hierarchy (Smoke Tests)¶

The smoke tests will test how to communicate transparency, not whether to be complete (decided) or whether to test (legislated).

Test variants:

Safety & Transparency HERO: "Every batch tested for pathogens — see the results" vs "Published test results via QR code"
Visual prominence: QR code hero element vs secondary
Completeness CREDIBILITY LAYER: "FEDIAF complete (all life stages) — independently verified" (removes blocker, not hero message)
Simplicity & Convenience: "One blend, delivered frozen"
Price anchoring: 12kg locked at £109 (premium positioning), calculator discount to £89 (Butternut Box parity)

Post-verification messaging: Once nutritional panel is published, messaging shifts from "designed to be complete" to "independently verified complete."

Target Market Profile (Raw-Curious Premium Buyers)¶

Who We're Converting¶

The £500M raw-curious segment consists of premium dog owners currently spending £2-3/day on:

Fresh cooked food (Butternut Box, Different Dog) — £150M segment
Super-premium kibble (Orijen, Acana, Canagan) — £250M segment
Ex-raw feeders (Tried raw, quit due to complexity/anxiety) — £100M segment

PLUS: The underserved puppy market: - ~30% of premium dog food purchases are for puppies - £240M annual spend on premium puppy nutrition - Highest lifetime value segment (12+ months rapid growth + brand loyalty formation) - Currently poorly served by raw category (most brands adult-only or questionable puppy safety)

Their Journey¶

✓ Philosophically aligned with raw principles ("real food, ancestral diet")
✓ Deterred by operational complexity (20+ SKU catalogs, rotation schedules)
✓ Blocked by safety anxiety (pathogen risk, lack of verification)
✓ Currently settled for "good enough" alternatives (cooked fresh or premium kibble)

Why They Convert to Protocol Raw¶

Their Barrier	Our Solution
"Which raw food should I choose?"	One perfected blend — no choice needed
"Do I need to rotate proteins?"	Multiple proteins in every bowl
"How do I know it's balanced?"	FEDIAF verified complete (all life stages)
"Can I feed this to my puppy?"	Growth & Reproduction compliant - safe from 8 weeks
"What about my pregnant dog?"	Same formula supports reproduction without supplements
"What if it's contaminated?"	Published batch reports — verify yourself
"My vet says raw is risky"	Transparent safety data reduces vet concerns
"It seems complicated"	Delivered frozen, feed from box, nothing to add
"When do I switch formulas?"	Never - one formula for entire life

We are NOT targeting¶

✓ Existing raw feeding enthusiasts (served by Bella & Duke, Paleo Ridge)
✓ DIY raw feeders (they prep themselves)
✓ Budget-conscious buyers (we're premium-priced)
✓ Kibble loyalists (not philosophically aligned)

Competitive Positioning¶

We compete with Butternut Box and premium kibble for raw-curious buyers, NOT with Bella & Duke for raw believers.

Message-Market Fit¶

Audience	Current Product	Pain Point	Our Message
Butternut customers	Cooked fresh (£2.50/day)	"I'm paying premium but nutrition is destroyed by cooking"	"Real raw nutrition, same convenience, published safety proof"
Premium kibble buyers	Orijen/Acana (£2/day)	"Processed food feels wrong but raw seems risky"	"One perfected blend, FEDIAF verified, independently tested"
Ex-raw feeders	Quit raw feeding	"Loved the results but too complex and anxious"	"Raw feeding, finally simple and safe"
Puppy owners	Premium puppy kibble (£2-3/day)	"Is raw safe for my puppy? Which formula do I choose?"	"Growth & Reproduction verified - one formula from 8 weeks to senior"
Multi-dog households	Different foods per dog	"Managing multiple formulas is exhausting"	"One formula for all your dogs, regardless of age"

CAC Expectations by Phase¶

Phase A (Months 0-6): Initial blended CAC £100-120 (cold acquisition to raw-curious premium buyers, NOT existing raw feeders). Goal: trend toward £70-90 by Month 5-6 as creative improves and referrals rise to 15-25%
Phase B (Months 7-18): Blended CAC £70-85, with referrals driving 25% of new customers
Phase C (Months 19-36): Blended CAC £60-75, with referrals at 35%

Veterinary Engagement Strategy¶

Veterinary endorsement will accelerate market expansion by reducing the 15% barrier from vet disapproval. While Protocol Raw's one-blend simplicity combined with published batch testing transparency can unlock the TAM without formal veterinary endorsement, proactive vet engagement will meaningfully improve conversion rates and accelerate category expansion from 1.5× toward 2.5×.

Strategy¶

We will proactively share our independent safety and nutritional data with the veterinary community as a trust-building initiative that runs in parallel with consumer acquisition.

Approach¶

Develop data packs ("Vet Validation Packs") detailing the Test-and-Release Protocol Standard and nutritional analysis
Share with interested practices starting Month 4 (not Month 9+)
Target Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) in nutrition during Months 12-18 (post-nutritional verification)

Milestones¶

Month 4: Develop 'Vet Validation Pack' → 1-page safety summary + full lab reports + nutritional panel
Month 6: Share with 10-15 London practices; secure 3-5 early endorsements (use as Seed proof point)
Month 12: 10-20 named vet endorsements (website testimonials, case studies)
Month 18: Launch KOL program — target vet nutritionists for conference presentations/webinars
Month 24: 15-25 practices endorsing (category leadership signal)

Budget¶

£10k for 'Vet Validation Pack' design and printing (Month 4)
£20k for KOL engagement program (honorariums, conference presence) (Months 12-24)
£10k for video testimonial production (Months 18-24)
Total: £40k (increased from £20k in v1.0)

Six-Month Proof Plan (What We Must Hit)¶

Month 0-1 (Pre-launch)¶

Smoke tests: 3 creative/transparency messaging variants × 2 price bands

Validation artifacts (Seed gates):

✓ 48-hour frozen stress test results (Woolcool + gel ice; 1:4 ratio)
✓ Written CPD quotes at 100 and 500 drops/week from 2-3 frozen 3PLs
✓ Pre-negotiated hyper-local carrier pilot terms (new addition)
✓ Written co-packer quotes with step-downs at volume thresholds
✓ Itemized COGS from co-packer, split into BOM, toll fee, packaging, storage, and Test-and-Release admin
✓ Written step-down schedule with thresholds at 5t, 12t, 25t, and 50t per month, including any setup or clean-down charges
✓ Named third-party lab partnership agreement with credentials/logo usage rights (university-affiliated preferred for maximum credibility)
✓ Lab SLA formalized: Target 3-day turnaround; penalties for delays >4 days
✓ Co-packer agreement (small-run MOQs) and sample validation
✓ Commission baseline nutrient panel (target: complete for all life stages - Growth and Reproduction standard)
✓ Build site v1 and KPI dashboards (CAC/LTV/Payback/Cohort table)
✓ Incident & recall playbook (new addition): 1-page cross-functional runbook for pathogen fail, temperature excursion, or portal data error, including customer messaging, refund rules, regulator notifications, and social media handling

Month 1-2 (Soft Launch: 50-100 orders)¶

Manual, high-touch onboarding (Day 0/3/7/14)
Track stool/transition; measure Box-2 intent
Baseline Ops KPIs: frozen-solid arrival rate, refund rate
Lab turnaround tracking: Dashboard metric from Day 1

AI-Native Ops Phase A → 50-60% automation by Month 6: - Deploy lab PDF parsing → automated Test-and-Release workflow (Make + OpenAI API) - Courier tracking alerts (DPD API integration) - Basic CS flows (Customer.io sequences; AI-assisted response drafts via Crisp/Intercom) - Exception handling remains manual; founder reviews AI drafts

Month 3-4 (Scale to 150-250)¶

Optimize creatives; target CAC reduction 10-15% (from £100-120 toward £90-100)
CPD Stop-Rule Check (Month 3): If Normalized CPD not trending below £22, implement density levers and packaging optimization
Logistics Optimization Project: Aggressively test alternative carriers, packaging insulation efficiencies, and negotiate courier discounts to reduce Normalized CPD by 15% (from £22-24 → £19-21)
Negotiate co-pack price step-down (at 12t/month)
Publish nutrient panel if "complete"; update messaging (PR/Vet outreach moment)
Develop 'Vet Validation Pack' (Month 4) and share with 10-15 London practices

Month 5-6 (Reach 300-500)¶

Target Metrics (Non-negotiable for Seed):

Box-2: >=70%
Box-3: >=55%
Normalized Contribution trending toward £26-28/box (12 kg)
Frozen-solid success: >=95%
Blended CAC: £70-90 with 15-25% referral share
Normalized CPD: £19-21 (15% reduction achieved)
Lab turnaround within SLA: >=90% of batches cleared within 3 days
3-5 vet endorsements secured (new addition)

AI-Native Ops Milestone: 50-60% automation rate achieved. Prepare for Operations Lead hire (Month 6-7).

Seed-Raise Trigger (End of Month 6)¶

Demand proof + strong retention (Box-2 >=70%) + improving contribution + CAC within range + "Complete" nutritional verification confirmed + validation artifacts delivered (including named lab partnership) + 3-5 vet endorsements.

Unlike typical pre-revenue raises, this Seed round follows founder-funded validation of demand, retention, and COGS step-downs, reducing execution risk and accelerating path to profitability.

Seed Ask (Post-proof): £1.0m — £1.5m to execute Phase B (London Scale) and launch City 2.

Retention System (Phased with Cadence Management)¶

Months 1-2¶

Manual check-ins, transition plan, "no one churns without a conversation"

Months 3-6¶

Automate Day 0/3/7/14 sequence
Introduce "Monthly Batch Report" email ritual
Referral incentives (standard £10; £20 for same-postcode referrals to build density)

Months 7+¶

Subscription cadence guardrails (new addition): - Track reorder interval drift (4-week target; flag at 5+ weeks) - Proactive outreach if interval extends: "Running low? Let's adjust your schedule" - Inventory buffer logic around travel: "Going away? We'll pause and resume automatically" - Lifecycle marketing remit: Police interval drift proactively, not just onboard

Phase B (Months 7-18)¶

Test limited SKU expansion: See "Product Expansion Strategy: Verified Raw Treats" section below for comprehensive launch plan (Month 9-11)
Strict SKU count discipline (3 core box sizes: 8kg/12kg/16kg; max 2-3 treat SKUs)
Shared components to avoid ops sprawl
Goal: Boost AOV and protect £1,040 ARPU target by reducing cadence drift

Targets¶

Two-layer retention model: - Box-2 retention: ≥70% (first-box survival — product-market fit signal) - Steady-state churn: <4%/month (active subscriber base after Box-2) - Implied blended churn: 5.4–7.3% depending on steady-state performance - Financial Model uses: 9.5% blended (conservative, includes Box-1 attrition at 30%)

Other retention targets: - 3-month retention: >=45% - NPS: 40-50

---¶

Product Expansion Strategy: Verified Raw Treats (Phase B, Month 9-11)¶

Strategic Rationale: ARPU Lift Through Brand-Consistent Expansion¶

The Opportunity: Add 20-30% incremental contribution per order through batch-verified freeze-dried treats without compromising operational efficiency or brand positioning.

Why Treats, Not Multiple Core SKUs: - Single-SKU core product maintains operational simplicity and all-life-stages positioning - Treats are complementary revenue (upsell/cross-sell) rather than SKU proliferation - Freeze-dried format is ambient (no CPD impact, fits existing box footprint) - High gross margin (£3.20-£4.00 contribution per £6.99 unit) - Brand moat extension: "Only freeze-dried treats with published batch testing"

Non-Negotiable Principle: Every Protocol Raw product must be batch-verified. Unverified treats would break the "Proof, Not Promises" positioning and hand competitors a messaging weapon ("Even Protocol Raw doesn't verify everything").

Launch Timing: Month 9-11 (Early Phase B)¶

Why Not Phase A (Months 0-6)? - Must prove core model first (Box-2 ≥70% on main product) - Can't determine if retention is product-market fit or treat-driven - Operational focus on single product until validated - Fundraising period (Month 4-6) requires undistracted execution

Why Not During 3PL Transition (Months 7-8)? - Critical operational risk window (founder fulfillment → 3PL handover) - Adding SKU complexity during transition = compounding failure modes - Need stability before expansion

Why Month 9-11 Is Optimal: - ✓ Phase A validation complete (6 months, 300-500 customers, ≥70% retention) - ✓ Seed raised and closed (Month 6-7) - ✓ 3PL transition stabilized (Month 7-8 complete) - ✓ 9 months of co-packer relationship (production smoothed) - ✓ 40-50+ published batch reports (proof system humming) - ✓ Early Phase B expansion starting but not yet scaled - ✓ Perfect timing to lift ARPU before aggressive CAC spend ramps

Launch Gates (Must Hit Before Month 9 Supplier Work Begins): 1. Phase A complete: 300-500 customers, 6 months of data 2. Box-2 retention ≥70% (trailing 3-month average) 3. Seed closed (capital secured) 4. 3PL transition complete"no operational fires for 4+ weeks 5. CPD trending toward target (normalized ≤£21, trending to £19) 6. Proof portal: 100% batch coverage, 40-50+ published reports

Product Specification: 2-3 SKU Maximum, Phase B Only¶

Initial Launch (Month 10): 1 SKU - Lamb lung puffs (80g): Ultra-light, highly palatable, low vitamin A risk, ambient stable - Target retail: £6.99 inc-VAT (£5.82 ex-VAT) - COGS: £1.40-£2.00 (ingredient + pouch + amortized testing) - Incremental contribution: £3.20-£4.00 per unit

Month 13+ Expansion: Add 1-2 Additional SKUs (only if Month 10-12 metrics hit targets) - Beef liver cubes (60g): Cap usage guidance due to vitamin A; include portion limits - Green tripe nibs (80g): High acceptance; warn about odor; "outdoor training treat" - Optional later (Phase C): Blue mussel bites (excellent manganese/EPA/DHA story, but requires tight iodine control; defer until core diet iodine validated)

Avoid (At Least Through Phase B): - Chicken (allergy complaints from day 1) - Jerky/air-dried "heated" treats (confuses raw positioning) - Weighty frozen chews/bones (CPD impact + tooth fracture risk + messy comms) - Kelp-heavy functional treats (iodine control complexity)

Safety, Compliance & Proof (Non-Negotiable)¶

Same Standards as Core Product: - Labeled as "Complementary pet food for dogs" - Usage guidance: "Treats should not exceed 10% of daily energy intake. Fresh water available at all times." - Microbiological testing per lot: - Salmonella: absence in 25g - Listeria: absence in 25g - Enterobacteriaceae: <100 cfu/g (hygiene indicator) - Water activity target: ≤0.60 (freeze-dried stability)

Published Verification: - Test per production lot (or pooled sub-lots if volume justifies) - Publish COA on same proof portal infrastructure - Batch-linked QR code on each treat pouch → proof portal → "Verified Raw Treats, Batch #TR-240515" - If COA cost threatens margin, increase lot size to amortize"never skip testing

Brand Positioning: - "The only freeze-dried treats with published batch testing" - "Same proof system. Every batch. Every product." - Reinforces "systematic verification" across all Protocol Raw products

Unit Economics & Contribution Analysis¶

Target Metrics (Month 11+ Steady State): - Attach rate: 20-30% of all orders - Average treat unit per attached order: 1.2 units - Incremental contribution per attached order: £3.80-£4.80 (1.2 — £3.20-£4.00) - Net contribution uplift to average order: £0.80-£1.20 (20-25% attach — £3.80-£4.80)

ARPU Impact: - Base ARPU (12kg core @ 4-week frequency): £1,180 annually - With treats (25% attach, 1.2 units/order): £1,250-£1,300 annually (+6-10%) - Strengthens unit economics before Phase B CAC scaling

Cost Structure (80g Lamb Lung Example @ £6.99): - COGS: £1.40-£2.00 (ingredient, pouch, supplier margin) - Incremental pick time: 30-45s (≈£0.10-£0.15 normalized labor) - Testing/portal amortization: £0.10-£0.20 per unit (assume 500kg lots) - Total cost: £1.60-£2.35 - Contribution: £3.20-£4.00 per unit (55-69% margin)

CPD Impact: Zero - Freeze-dried treats are ambient (no PCM/gel ice requirement) - Fits existing 12kg box footprint (minimal volumetric impact) - Weight addition negligible (<100g per order)

Go-To-Market Strategy: Low-Friction Merchandising¶

Phase A Cohort Soft Launch (Month 10): - Email to first 100 customers: "Early Access: Verified Raw Treats" - Reinforces brand loyalty ("You're first to try this") - Measure baseline attach rate with zero checkout friction (email link only) - Target: 30-40% attach rate from high-trust cohort

Full Rollout (Month 11): 1. Checkout upsell: "Add Verified Raw Treats +£6.99"single-ingredient, batch tested with QR" 2. Subscription add-on: "Treat of the month" opt-in (cancel anytime) 3. Post-delivery proof page CTA: "This batch is cleared. Want batch-verified treats with your next box?" 4. Referral bonus: Include free sample in referrer's next box (stimulates trial + word-of-mouth)

Messaging (Quiet Luxury Aesthetic): - No bold claims or emotional language - Focus on verification ritual: "Batch TR-240515. Tested. Cleared. Delivered." - Let the QR code speak for itself

Operational Integration & Fulfillment¶

Packaging & Storage: - Ambient storage (6-18 month shelf life depending on supplier) - Treat pouches stored separately from frozen inventory - No cold-chain requirements (simplifies ops)

Pick/Pack Integration (SOP-PACK-01 Amendment): - Add 30-45s to pack time for treat-included orders - Treat pouches placed on top of frozen product (last item in box) - Barcode scan confirmation (inventory deduction + audit trail)

Inventory Management (SOP-INV-01 Amendment): - Lot-level traceability (GS1 lot code printed on pouch) - FEFO rotation like core product - Recall-ready: lot → order → customer mapping in Supabase

Quality Control: - Test-and-Release gating applies to treats (no lot released without COA clearance) - Failed micro test → hold/destroy entire lot - Publish status on proof portal ("Batch TR-240601: Cleared" or "Batch TR-240605: Held - Pending Retest")

Supplier Requirements & Sourcing (Jamie-Led, Month 9)¶

Supplier Profile: - UK Cat-3 origin, single-ingredient freeze-drier - Private-label capability (Protocol Raw branding) - Per-lot COA provision with our micro spec - Willingness to allow COA publication (non-negotiable) - Dual-source capability for top SKU (mitigate supply risk)

Negotiation Points: - MOQ: 50-100kg per lot initially (scales to 500kg+ by Phase C) - Lead time: 2-3 weeks from order to delivery - Pricing: Volume step-downs at 500kg, 1,000kg, 2,500kg - Packaging: GS1-compliant lot codes, QR-printable labels - Testing: Supplier provides COA; we retain right to independent verification

Target Supplier Shortlist (Jamie to Build): - UK freeze-dried treat manufacturers with human-chain certifications - Existing clients: premium pet brands (validate quality standards) - Lab partnerships: Suppliers with established UKAS lab relationships

Technology Integration: Automated Treat Workflows¶

Shopify Add-On Flow (Build: Month 9): - Product page: "Add treats" checkbox with SKU selector - Cart: Treat line item with batch verification badge - Checkout: "Your treats will have a QR code linking to published test results"

Make.com Automation Scenarios: 1. Order Ingestion: Detect treat SKU in order → flag for pick/pack 2. Inventory Allocation: Allocate treat lot using FEFO logic (oldest cleared lot first) 3. QR Code Generation: Generate treat-specific QR (format: https://proof.protocolraw.com/treat/TR-YYMMDD) 4. Proof Portal Update: Link treat batch to customer order in audit trail

Metabase Dashboard Additions: - Treat attach rate (daily, weekly, cohort-level) - Treat contribution per order (absolute £, % of total contribution) - Treat inventory: lots on hand, days of supply, pending COA clearance - Treat quality: micro test results, failure rate, hold/release cadence

Success Metrics & Stop-Rules¶

Launch Success Criteria (8 Weeks Post-Rollout, Month 13): - ✓ Attach rate ≥20% (target: 25-30%) - ✓ Incremental contribution ≥£0.80/order - ✓ Zero micro failures on released lots - ✓ Zero customer complaints re: quality/safety - ✓ Pick/pack time increase <60s/order

Stop-Rules (Pause or Pivot): - If attach <15% after 8 weeks and 1,000+ orders: Re-merchandise (test pricing, placement, copy) or change SKUs - If incremental contribution <£0.60/order: Review COGS (supplier negotiation), pricing, or pause - If micro failure rate >5% of lots: Halt, audit supplier QA, potentially switch suppliers - If pick/pack time increase >90s: Operational friction too high; re-design fulfillment flow

Expansion Trigger (Add SKU #2): - Attach rate ≥25% sustained for 4+ weeks - Contribution ≥£1.00/order - Customer feedback requests specific treat types - Operational capacity confirmed (no pick/pack bottlenecks)

Strategic Benefits & Moat Reinforcement¶

ARPU Lift Without Complexity: - +£70-£120 annual ARPU from treats (6-10% lift) - Improves LTV:CAC ratio before Phase B acquisition scaling - Strengthens unit economics for Series A pitch

Brand Moat Extension: - "Verified Raw Treats" becomes defensible subcategory - Competitors face same 18-24 month proof accumulation lag - Further differentiates from "trust us" treat brands

Customer Retention Signal: - Treat purchasers likely exhibit higher retention (treat = engagement signal) - Can be used as leading indicator for churn prediction models

Operational Leverage: - Demonstrates ability to expand product range without proportional ops cost - Validates "AI-native ops" thesis (add SKUs without headcount)

Investor Narrative (Seed Pitch, Month 4-6)¶

"We've proven Phase A: ≥70% Box-2 retention, £1,180 ARPU, single SKU at £109/box. Post-raise, we'll transition to 3PL (Month 7-8), then launch verified treats (Month 10)"same proof system, targeting 20-30% attach rate, lifting ARPU to £1,250-£1,300. This improves contribution margins before we scale Phase B CAC spend, strengthening unit economics and demonstrating product expansion capability without operational bloat. Even our treats have QR codes."

Why Investors Like This: 1. Disciplined execution: Didn't distract during Phase A validation 2. Operationally smart: Waited until 3PL transition stabilized 3. Moat extension: Verification applies to all products (category ownership) 4. Capital efficient: Seed funds scale, not experimentation 5. Margin enhancement: Higher-margin treats improve blended contribution before CAC scaling

Phase-by-Phase Integration Summary¶

Phase	Treats Status	Strategic Focus
Phase A (M0-6)	Not launched	Validate core product, prove retention, raise seed
Phase B (M7-18)	Launch M9-11, optimize M12-18	Lift ARPU on existing base, prove attach rates, add 1-2 SKUs if metrics hit
Phase C (M19-36)	BAU, 3 SKUs max	Treats included in new customer acquisition offers, maintain 25-30% attach

Key Principle: Treats are a retention and ARPU optimization lever, not a growth driver. They enhance unit economics on customers acquired through the core product, but never become the primary value proposition.

v1.5 Update Summary (Verified Raw Treats Strategy)¶

Changes: - ✓ Added comprehensive "Product Expansion Strategy: Verified Raw Treats" section - ✓ Timing rationalized: Month 9-11 (Early Phase B) after 3PL transition, before aggressive CAC scaling - ✓ Launch gates defined: Phase A validation, seed closed, 3PL stable, CPD on track - ✓ Unit economics detailed: £3.20-£4.00 contribution per unit, £0.80-£1.20 net order lift - ✓ ARPU impact quantified: +£70-£120 annually (6-10% lift to £1,250-£1,300) - ✓ Non-negotiable verification maintained: Same micro testing, published COAs, QR codes on pouches - ✓ Operational integration specified: Pick/pack SOPs, inventory management, supplier requirements - ✓ Technology workflows defined: Shopify add-on, Make.com automation, Metabase dashboards - ✓ Success metrics and stop-rules: 20-30% attach target, £0.80+ contribution, quality gates - ✓ Investor narrative integrated: Demonstrates operational leverage and disciplined expansion - ✓ Brand positioning reinforced: "Only freeze-dried treats with published batch testing"

Rationale: Treats represent a high-ROI, brand-consistent expansion opportunity that lifts ARPU 6-10% with minimal operational complexity. Launching in Month 9-11 (after Phase A validation and 3PL transition) demonstrates disciplined execution while strengthening unit economics before Phase B CAC scaling. Maintaining verification on treats extends the competitive moat and reinforces "systematic, not emotional" brand positioning.

Systems-First Company: The Operational Moat¶

Protocol Raw is not a dog food company with technology. It's a systems-first company that happens to sell dog food. This is the moat.

What We've Built (Pre-Launch)¶

24 Production-Ready SOPs totaling 20,640 lines of operational documentation:

System	SOPs	Status	Scale
Order Flow	SOP 00, 0X, 0Y	Production Ready	100k+ customers
Batch & QA	SOP 01, 0R	Production Ready	Cryptographic proof, lab-to-release automation
Inventory	SOP-INV-01, INV-02	Production Ready	FEFO with split-batch allocation, demand forecasting
Cold Chain	SOP-PACK-01	Production Ready	Weather-based PCM calculation, audit system
Cost Tracking	SOP 05	Production Ready	AI invoice parsing (GPT-4o), real-time COGS/CPD
Customer Ops	SOP CS-00 through CS-03	Production Ready	Full ticketing, AI triage with shadow mode, live chat
Monitoring	SOP-MON-01, MON-02	Production Ready	6 automated monitors, pg_cron + Edge Functions
Lifecycle	SOP-LC-01, CHS-01, REF-01	Production Ready	Health scoring, lifecycle comms, referral system
Subscription	SOP-SUB-00	Production Ready	Full state machine (1,740 lines)

Operations Portal v3.6 (2,068 lines) — a full enterprise application: - Pack Day automation with weather-based PCM calculation - Fulfillment management with batch dispatch and CSV upload - Support Workstation with ticket management, customer search, conversation threading - AI Agent Review module (shadow mode validation for AI decisions) - Live Chat integration - Metabase analytics dashboards

Total technical documentation: 45,175 lines — before a single customer order.

Why This Is The Moat¶

Competitors can copy the tech stack. They cannot copy:

Documentation depth: 24 SOPs with complete edge case handling, error recovery, and monitoring. A competitor would need 6-12 months to build equivalent operational muscle memory.
Founder-as-systems-architect: The founder designed and built every system. This isn't delegated to an agency or junior engineer. The technical understanding runs to the database index level—and stays with the founder permanently.
Scale-first architecture: Every system is tested and indexed for 100,000+ customers. No re-architecture required. A competitor starting with "good enough" systems will hit scaling walls we've already solved.
Integrated proof infrastructure: The batch-to-QR-to-proof-page pipeline is woven through 8 different SOPs. Retrofitting transparency onto existing operations is architecturally painful.

This is why the technical moat is 18-24 months, not because the code is complex, but because the operational documentation, edge case handling, and systems integration cannot be accelerated.

The Founder's Role: Permanent Systems Architect¶

The founder retains systems architecture ownership permanently. This is not delegable.

Founder owns: - Database design and optimization - Automation logic (Make.com scenarios, Edge Functions, pg_cron jobs) - API integrations (Shopify, Customer.io, couriers, 3PLs) - Monitoring and alerting architecture - All technical documentation and SOPs

Operations Lead (Month 7-9 hire) owns: - Day-to-day execution within founder-built systems - Partner relationships (3PL, courier, co-packer coordination) - Exception handling and escalation - Compliance documentation and audit readiness - Customer operations execution

The division is clear: Founder architects. Operations Lead executes. The founder's technical depth is the moat—diluting it by delegating systems ownership would destroy the competitive advantage.

Automation Reality (Not Roadmap)¶

This isn't a roadmap to automation. The systems are already built.

Current State (Pre-Launch): - Order ingestion: <200ms (webhook to database) - Batch allocation: Instant (triggered on batch release) - 3PL export: Every 15 minutes (4,800 orders/day capacity) - Cost capture: Real-time (AI parsing >95% accuracy) - Customer notifications: Event-driven (instant) - Monitoring: 6 automated checks, pg_cron scheduled, Slack alerts

Phase A (Months 0-6): Operational refinement, not building - Systems already production-ready - Focus: tuning based on real order volume - Target: <20 hrs/week founder time on routine ops

Phase B (Months 7-18): Scale validation - Operations Lead hired (Month 7-9) for execution, not architecture - Systems proven at 1,000 → 10,000 customers - Founder focuses on growth, fundraising, and systems enhancement

Phase C (Months 19-36): Enterprise maturity - Systems proven at 10,000 → 50,000 customers - COO evaluation (promote Operations Lead or hire external) - Founder remains systems architect, shifts to strategy

Capital Efficiency: The Hidden Advantage¶

Traditional Pet Food Operations (100,000 customers): - Full-stack engineering team: £200k+/year - Operations team (3-4 people): £150k+/year - Customer service team: £120k+/year - Total: £470k+/year in headcount

Protocol Raw (100,000 customers): - Tooling (Make, Supabase, OpenAI, Customer.io): £45k/year - Operations Lead: £50k/year - Founder (systems architect): Already equity-compensated - Total: ~£95k/year

Capital efficiency advantage: 5× vs. traditional operations

This shows up in contribution margin (42-47% vs. 30-35%) and justifies tech-company multiples (8-12× ARR) rather than food manufacturing multiples (4-6× ARR).

Risks & Stop-rules (Updated)¶

Risk	Stop-rule	Action
CAC >=£120 (trend not improving)	End of Month 3	Pause paid; refresh creative
Box-2 <60%	End of Month 4	Pause, call churners, fix cause, restart with test cohort
Normalized CPD not trending below £22	Month 3	Implement density levers; test packaging optimization; renegotiate courier fees
Logistics Normalized CPD >=£23 by Month 4 (not trending to £19-21 by Month 6)	End of Month 6	Restrict delivery zones; renegotiate 3PL/courier terms
Phase B Normalized CPD not trending toward £14-18	Month 12	Restrict expansion; focus on London density; test hyper-local carriers; formalize carrier SLAs with penalties
Frozen-solid <95%	Ongoing	Tighten lanes/3PL; add insulation
COGS reality check: If landed COGS exceeds £4.50 per kg at Month 4	Month 4	Pause scale. Actions: renegotiate co-pack terms, confirm whether Test-and-Release admin fee is separately itemized, review formulation inputs for cost-neutral substitutions, and consider holding price at the top of the band
Lab turnaround >4 days for 20% of batches	Month 6	Activate backup lab partnership; renegotiate SLA with penalties
Safety incident (pathogen fail, temperature excursion, portal data error)	Immediate	Execute incident & recall playbook: customer messaging, refund rules, regulator notification, social media handling

Strategic Risks: The Core Falsification Test¶

The operational risks above are manageable. The existential risk is strategic: does verification unlock a meaningfully different customer cohort than brand-led raw?

The Binary Question:

Bella & Duke has proven that raw demand is elastic—60%+ of their new customers are raw-first-timers, converted through better branding of an unverified product. This validates that the raw-curious TAM exists.

But it raises a critical question: If B&D can convert raw-hesitant customers through reframing alone, does verification unlock additional demand?

Falsification Conditions:

The thesis fails if:

Customers cite brand/ideology over proof as primary driver
If our customers say "I love the mission" rather than "I love that I can verify safety", verification isn't the differentiator
Measurement: Post-purchase surveys, NPS drivers, churn reason analysis
Vet uptake is weak despite proof data
If vets are uninterested in recommending Protocol Raw even with published batch reports, the institutional trust mechanism breaks
Measurement: <5 vet endorsements by Month 15 despite 50+ batch reports
Retention does not exceed category norms
If Box-2 retention converges to B&D levels (~60-65%) rather than exceeding them (70%+), proof isn't creating defensible loyalty
Measurement: Cohort retention analysis vs. industry benchmarks
Proof portal engagement is low
If <10% of customers scan QR codes, verification is marketing theatre, not genuine value
Measurement: Portal visits per customer, QR scan rate

If these conditions materialize, growth converges toward category norms and exit value falls to £200-300M range (still viable, but not venture-scale).

The Bull Case:

Verification unlocks a structurally different customer segment: - Evidence-responsive rather than narrative-responsive - Higher retention (trust is earned, not claimed) - Stronger vet endorsement pathway (institutional credibility) - Word-of-mouth driven by proof, not brand affinity

This is a testable hypothesis. Phase A will reveal whether verification creates differentiated unit economics or merely participates in category expansion.

Additional Strategic Risks (NEW in v2.1)¶

9. Narrative Theft¶

Risk: Competitor claims "We test our food too" without building equivalent infrastructure, collapsing our differentiation in the public's mind.

Why This Matters:
Replicating Protocol Raw's infrastructure takes years. Replicating headlines takes a press release. A large brand doesn't need to match our systems perfectly to say "We test our food too."

Mitigation: - Institutional anchors: Named vet academics, advisory board create asymmetric credibility - Published outcomes data: 12-18 months of structured health data creates evidence competitors can't accelerate - Proof specificity: "Every batch independently tested" + "Results published before release" + "Scan QR code to verify" is harder to fake - Time-locked trust capital: By Month 24, Protocol Raw has 200+ published batch reports

Contingency: If competitor launches narrative-matching campaign, accelerate institutional announcement, emphasize proof portal engagement metrics publicly.

10. "Safety Company" Pigeonhole¶

Risk: Protocol Raw becomes permanently perceived as "the safety raw brand"—respected but narrowly defined.

Why This Matters:
Markets form impressions early and update slowly. If every touchpoint screams "SAFETY!" for 18 months, repositioning to "We understand dog health" becomes an uphill battle.

Mitigation: - Curiosity signals in Phase A: Health questionnaires framed as "we're tracking how dogs respond" - Outcomes infrastructure begins immediately: Data collection from Day 1 - Institutional relationships cultivated early: Vet academics engaged during Phase A - "Proof, not promises" extends naturally: From "proof of safety" to "proof of outcomes"

Contingency: If customer research shows strong "safety brand only" perception by Month 12, accelerate curiosity signal frequency.

11. Second Moat Neglect¶

Risk: Outcomes data infrastructure gets deprioritized under growth pressure—leaving Protocol Raw unable to execute Phase B crown transition.

Why This Matters:
Visible work naturally crowds out invisible work because only visible work shows results this quarter.

"Governance alone isn't enough. Under cash/growth/ops pressure, governance loses to urgency. The outcomes moat needs budget protection, not just ownership."

Mitigation: - Named owner: Anton (pre-funding); dedicated resource (post-seed) - Ring-fenced budget: £2-5k/month protected research/insights allocation—treated as infrastructure investment - Quarterly internal review: Institutional relationship progress, data accumulation status - Simple KPI: "Months of structured health data accumulated"—tracked alongside Box-2 retention

Contingency: If "we need to cut spend" moment arrives, outcomes moat budget protected at same level as hosting costs.

12. "Most Impressive Raw Brand No One Tries"¶

Risk: Protocol Raw builds impressive systems that matter to us but not to customers.

Why This Matters:
Without outcome-first messaging, Protocol Raw risks becoming "the best raw food company that normal people think is too intense for them."

Mitigation: - "Worry Goes Away" litmus test: All copy evaluated against "Does this make the experience feel calmer? Or does it make us look impressive?" - Advocacy language tracking: Monitor whether referrals are mechanism-based ("they test everything") or outcome-based ("stress-free") - Brand principle: "We lead with the feeling. We back it with the system."

Contingency: If feedback shows "impressive but not for me" patterns, accelerate messaging recalibration.

Outcomes Data Infrastructure (NEW in v2.1)¶

Purpose¶

Capture dog health outcomes over time to enable Phase B positioning: "We understand what raw actually does to dogs."

This infrastructure represents Protocol Raw's second moat—distinct from proof infrastructure (safety) but equally defensible. Data accumulation cannot be accelerated; starting late means arriving late.

Why This Begins Pre-Launch¶

"Bad or ambiguous data is worse than no data."

If outcomes data is to become a future moat, the methodology must be defensible under external scrutiny. This requires:

Baseline capture before first box: Without pre-Protocol Raw health state, we cannot show change
Methodology design before launch: Data structure must anticipate scrutiny questions
12-18 months of accumulation: Before data is publishable or claimable

Starting at Month 6 means publishable data at Month 24. Starting at Month 0 means publishable data at Month 18.

Design Requirements¶

Requirement	Why It Matters
Baseline capture	Without pre-Protocol Raw data, we can't demonstrate change
Longitudinal tracking	Point-in-time snapshots don't show trends
Methodology defensibility	Data must withstand "How do you know this isn't selection bias?"
Segmentation capability	Different dogs may respond differently
Attribution clarity	Food effects vs. season, exercise, age must be separable

Health Markers to Track¶

Category	Markers	Collection Method
Digestive	Stool consistency (Bristol scale), frequency, flatulence	Self-report questionnaire
Coat/Skin	Coat condition (1-5), shedding level, skin issues	Self-report + optional photo
Energy	Activity level (1-5), stamina, recovery	Self-report questionnaire
Weight	Current weight, trend direction	Self-report (vet-verified optional)
Medical	Vet visits, allergy symptoms, medication changes	Self-report questionnaire
Dental	Teeth condition, breath, tartar buildup	Self-report (vet-verified optional)

Must capture: - Current diet (brand, type, duration on current food) - Existing health conditions - Current state of each health marker (establishes pre-Protocol Raw baseline) - Reason for switching to raw (motivation segmentation) - Dog demographics (breed, age, weight, activity level, neutered status) - Household context (other pets, children, feeding environment)

Critical design principle:

Collect data from Day 1 that could withstand a vet or journalist asking "How do you know this isn't just selection bias?"

Follow-up Questionnaire Schedule¶

Touchpoint	Timing	Focus
Box 2 delivery	~Week 4	Transition symptoms, early changes
Month 3	Week 12	Full health marker assessment
Month 6	Week 24	Full assessment + NPS
Month 12	Week 52	Full assessment + annual review

Methodology Defensibility Questions¶

Question	How We Address It
What's your baseline?	Pre-Protocol Raw health state captured at signup
What's your control?	Segmentation by prior diet allows comparison
How do you handle self-reporting bias?	Standardized scales, trend direction focus
How do you segment?	Full demographics captured at baseline
What's attributable to food?	Seasonal normalization, explicit limitation acknowledgment

Data Governance¶

All data anonymised for external publication
Individual customer data used only for their own tracking
Aggregated data for research (with methodology disclosure)
Clear consent at signup

KPI: Months of Structured Health Data Accumulated¶

Tracked alongside Box-2 retention as Phase A success metric.

Month	Target Baselines	Target Checkpoints	Data Completeness
Month 3	100-150	50-75 (Box 2)	>80% of eligible
Month 6	300-500	200+	>75% of eligible
Month 12	4,000-5,000	2,500+	>70% of eligible
Month 18	7,000-10,000	5,000+	>70% of eligible

Publishable threshold: 6-12 months of data from 1,000+ dogs with >70% checkpoint completion.

Institutional Relationship Strategy (NEW in v2.1)¶

The Role of Institutions¶

Institutional relationships serve two functions:

Phase A: Narrative insurance—makes it harder for competitors to collapse distinctions with "We test too" claims
Phase B: Credibility anchor—enables outcomes claims to carry weight

Three Models¶

Model	What It Provides	Effort	Target
Advisors	Credibility ("Dr. X advises Protocol Raw")	Low	Phase A/B
Partners	Co-authored knowledge ("Protocol Raw + University published...")	High	Series A
Validators	Formal endorsement	Very High	May not be achievable

Phase A Target: Advisors¶

Goal: Identify 1-2 vet academics who could become advisors. Begin relationship quietly during settlement period.

Profile sought: - Academic credentials (university-affiliated) - Interest in raw feeding research (curious, not evangelical) - Willingness to review methodology - Comfort with commercial relationship

Timeline: - Settlement period: Identify 2-3 candidates - Month 0-6: Initial outreach and methodology consultation - Month 6-12: Deepen relationship, begin advisory discussions - Month 12-18: Formalize 1-2 advisory relationships (quiet) - Month 18+: Announce advisory board (visible)

Phase B+ Target: Partners¶

Goal: Research partnership producing co-authored insights.

Prerequisites: - 18+ months of structured health data - Established advisory relationship - Series A capital for research funding

This is a Series A deliverable, not a Phase A deliverable.

Brand Principles (UPDATED in v2.1)¶

Core Principle: "Proof, Not Promises"¶

Every claim must be verifiable. Every verification must be accessible. We don't ask customers to trust us—we give them the evidence to verify for themselves.

New Principle: "We Lead With the Feeling. We Back It With the System."¶

Every piece of customer-facing communication should: 1. Lead with the customer outcome (how they feel, what changes for them) 2. Support with the mechanism (how we deliver that outcome)

Not the reverse.

Messaging Emphasis: Outcome-First, Mechanism-Second¶

Before (Mechanism-Led)	After (Outcome-Led)
"Every batch independently tested"	"Raw feeding you don't have to worry about"
"UKAS-accredited laboratory"	"Finally, peace of mind"
"Results published via QR code"	"The uncertainty is gone"

Critical nuance: The mechanisms still appear—they're the proof. But they support the outcome claim rather than leading with it.

The "Worry Goes Away" Litmus Test (RELEASE GATE)¶

All customer-facing materials must be evaluated against:

"Does this make the experience feel calmer, simpler, more reassuring? Or does it make us look impressive?"

Where to apply: - Homepage copy - Onboarding emails - Proof portal - Packaging copy - First delivery experience - Support scripts - Calculator experience

Elevation to release gate: This test is non-optional QA. No copy or UX ships without passing the "calmer vs impressive" check.

Proof Proximity Rule¶

Every outcome claim should be within one scroll / one click of a specific, visible proof artifact.

This prevents "peace of mind" from becoming generic wellness language. The outcome claim is credible because the proof is immediately accessible.

Phase A Outcomes Language Placement Rules¶

✅ Allowed (Curiosity Signals)	âŒ Not Allowed (Premature Claims)
Health questionnaires as "we're tracking how dogs respond"	Homepage hero copy
Founder narrative about understanding (not just verifying)	Paid acquisition headlines
Behind-the-scenes content showing data collection	Above-the-fold copy
Proof portal metadata quietly tracking outcomes	Any context where it reads as a claim

Rule: If it can be misread as a claim, it's too early. Curiosity signals only.

Phase A Workstreams (UPDATED in v2.1)¶

Phase A Now Includes "Quiet Infrastructure"¶

Phase A previously focused exclusively on visible validation. This update adds parallel quiet infrastructure for Phase B preparation.

Workstream	Activities	Success Metric	Visibility
Safety Crown (Visible)	Product launch, CAC optimization, retention validation, vet endorsements	70% Box-2, CAC £70-90, 3-5 vet endorsements	Public
Proof Infrastructure (Visible)	Batch testing, QR system, proof portal	100% batch coverage, >10% QR scan rate	Public
Outcomes Infrastructure (Quiet)	Health questionnaire design, baseline methodology, data collection	>80% baseline capture, methodology documented	Internal
Institutional Groundwork (Quiet)	Identify vet academics, begin relationship cultivation	1-2 warm relationships by seed raise	Internal

Settlement Period Actions (Pre-Month 0) - UPDATED in v2.1¶

Action	Purpose	Deliverable
Design health outcomes data model	Enable Phase B moat	Database schema, migration scripts
Design baseline questionnaire	Make outcomes data defensible	Questionnaire spec, Customer.io integration plan
Identify 2-3 vet academic targets	Begin institutional groundwork	Shortlist with approach strategy
Review all copy against "worry goes away" test	Ensure outcome-first messaging	Revision notes for homepage, emails, calculator
Add principles to Brand Voice Guidelines	Codify learnings	Updated guidelines document

Long-Term Vision: European Expansion & £1B+ Exit Strategy¶

Why Europe is the Path to £100M+ ARR¶

UK Growth Case delivers £70-89M ARR by Year 5. European expansion unlocks the path to £100M+ combined ARR and £1B+ enterprise value.

The European Opportunity¶

Market Size: - EU dog food market: €30-35B (~£25-29B) - 6-7× UK size - EU premium segment: €9-10.5B (~£7.5-8.8B) - Raw penetration: 1-3% (vs UK 5-6%) - underdeveloped market - Addressable EU raw market: €300-500M (~£250-420M)

Key Target Markets: 1. Germany: Largest EU pet food market, low raw penetration (~2%), high premium spend, strong natural products culture 2. France: Growing premium segment, pet humanization trend accelerating, receptive to transparency 3. Netherlands: High pet ownership density, English proficiency (70%+), premium segment well-developed 4. Ireland: English-speaking, regulatory alignment with UK (easiest pilot market) 5. Nordics (Sweden, Denmark, Norway): High disposable income, natural products affinity, premium pet segment mature

Why EU is where UK was 5-7 years ago: - ✓ Pet humanization trend accelerating - ✓ Premium segment growing (8-10% CAGR) - ✓ Limited raw options (mostly frozen whole prey, DIY, imported UK brands) - ✓ LESS trust/transparency than UK (no equivalent of Bella & Duke scale) - ✓ Stronger regulatory environment (FEDIAF compliance more strictly enforced)

Strategic Advantages in EU¶

1. Regulatory Gold Standard - FEDIAF Growth & Reproduction compliance = pan-European credential - UK regulatory approval transfers seamlessly (especially English-speaking markets) - Stronger regulatory signal in EU than UK (compliance more valued, creating credibility advantage)

2. Competitive Vacuum - No EU equivalent of Bella & Duke at scale - Fragmented BARF market (small regional players, DIY enthusiasts) - Less trust/transparency infrastructure than UK - Protocol Raw enters as premium verified standard with established proof infrastructure

3. Proof Infrastructure Travels - QR codes universal across geographies - Lab partnerships: Establish local UKAS-equivalents (TÜV in Germany, COFRAC in France, RvA in Netherlands) - Vet endorsement playbook proven in UK, replicate per country - Fresh → Verified Raw conversion case identical (Butternut Box expanding to EU validates demand)

4. AI-Native Ops Enable Low-Cost Multi-Country Scale - Centralized platform (Make.com, Supabase, OpenAI) manages multi-country operations - £150-250k per new market (vs £500k+ traditional CPG requiring country managers, local ops teams) - Operations Lead per region (not per country) - single EU Ops Lead can manage 3-4 markets - Same 10-19× capital efficiency advantage applies across geographies

5. Butternut Box EU Expansion Validates Demand - Butternut Box secured significant May 2025 financing for EU expansion - Proves premium fresh/raw-aligned food demand exists across Europe - They're solving safety through cooking; we solve it through verification - Same customer psychographic, different (nutritionally superior) solution

EU Expansion Roadmap¶

Year 4-5: EU Pilots (Series A Allocation: £2-3M)

Ireland Launch (Year 4): - English-speaking (zero translation cost) - Regulatory alignment with UK (FEDIAF compliance transfers) - Small test market (5M population, ~400k dogs, high premium segment) - Target: 2,000-3,000 customers by end Year 5 - ARR: £2-3M - Validation: Logistics playbook (3PL partnerships), lab partnerships (local UKAS-equivalent), vet endorsement model

Netherlands Launch (Year 5): - High English proficiency (70%+ speak English) - Strong premium pet segment, dense urban centers (Amsterdam, Rotterdam) - 2M+ dogs, high pet ownership density - Target: 3,000-5,000 customers by end Year 5 - ARR: £3-5M - Validation: Non-English-speaking market readiness, scale beyond pilot

Combined EU Pilot Performance by End Year 5: - Customers: 5,000-8,000 - ARR: £5-8M - Proof: Model works internationally, logistics/ops scalable, vet endorsement transferable

Year 6-8: EU Multi-Market Scale (Series B: £30-50M)

Germany Launch (Year 6): - Largest EU pet food market - Addressable raw market: €100-150M (currently underdeveloped at 1-2% penetration) - Deployment: £5-8M (co-packer partnership, lab certifications, local 3PL, CAC) - Target by Year 8: 28,000-32,000 customers - ARPU: £850-920 (competitive pricing pressure, mature market by Year 8) - ARR: £24-29M

France Launch (Year 7): - Strong premiumization trend - Addressable raw market: €80-120M - Deployment: £5-8M - Target by Year 8: 18,000-22,000 customers - ARPU: £850-950 (Year 1-2 of scale, promotional pricing still active) - ARR: £15-21M

Benelux Scale (Netherlands + Belgium, Year 6-7): - Netherlands already validated, expand to Belgium - Addressable combined raw market: €50-80M - Deployment: £3-5M (incremental to Netherlands pilot) - Target by Year 8: 14,000-18,000 customers - ARPU: £990-1,040 (closest to UK economics, English proficiency, mature by Year 8) - ARR: £14-19M

Nordics Launch (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Year 7): - High disposable income, natural products culture - Addressable combined raw market: €60-90M - Deployment: £4-6M (multiple small markets, shared infrastructure) - Target by Year 8: 10,000-13,000 customers - ARPU: £1,080-1,150 (premium pricing power, Year 1-2 of scale) - ARR: £11-15M

Total EU Performance by Year 8: - Markets: 4-5 countries at scale - Customers: 70,000-85,000 - Blended ARPU: £850-950 (reflects portfolio maturity mix) - ARR: £60-81M

Note on EU ARPU: Blended ARPU below UK target (£1,040) reflects portfolio maturity dynamics by Year 8: - Mature markets (Germany Year 6 launch, Benelux Year 6-7 launch): £850-1,040 ARPU with full pricing power established - Scaling markets (France Year 7 launch, Nordics Year 7 launch): £850-950 ARPU still optimizing frequency and reducing promotional intensity - By Year 10: Expected convergence to £950-1,040 ARPU across full EU portfolio as all markets mature

Combined UK + EU ARR by Year 8¶

UK (Mature Market Leader): - Growth Case sustained/exceeded - Customers: 80,000-100,000 - ARPU: £1,040 - ARR: £83-104M

EU (4-5 Scaled Markets): - Germany, France, Benelux, Nordics operational - Customers: 70,000-85,000 - Blended ARPU: £850-950 - ARR: £60-81M

Market-by-Market ARPU Breakdown (Year 8): | Market | Launch Year | Maturity | Customers | ARPU | ARR | |--------|-------------|----------|-----------|------|-----| | Benelux | Year 6-7 | Mature | 14-18k | £990-1,040 | £14-19M | | Germany | Year 6 | Mature | 28-32k | £850-920 | £24-29M | | France | Year 7 | Scaling | 18-22k | £850-950 | £15-21M | | Nordics | Year 7 | Scaling | 10-13k | £1,080-1,150 | £11-15M | | Total EU | — | Blended | 70-85k | £850-950 | £60-81M |

Total Combined: - Customers: 150,000-185,000 - ARR: £143-185M - Market position:** Pan-European category leader in verified raw

Why EU ARPU is 82-91% of UK: Portfolio includes mature markets (Benelux/Germany achieving near-UK pricing) and recently-launched markets (France/Nordics still in Year 1-2 of scale with promotional intensity and frequency optimization underway). All markets trend toward £950-1,040 ARPU by Year 10 as they mature.

Exit Scenarios & Valuations¶

Path 1: UK-Only Focus & Strategic Exit (Years 5-7)

Profile: - UK ARR: £70-89M (Growth Case achieved) - EU pilots validated (Ireland, Netherlands: £5-8M ARR) - Category leadership established in UK - Proof infrastructure mature (200+ batch reports) - Vet endorsement network (20-30 practices)

Valuation: - Multiple: 7-10× ARR (UK asset with proven international pilot) - Enterprise Value: £490-890M

Acquirer Profile: - Nestl×, Mars, VAFO (strategic CPG acquiring UK category leader) - Proven model + operational leverage + tech platform - EU pilots provide expansion optionality for acquirer

Timeline: 5-7 years from launch
Risk Profile: Lower (UK-focused execution, faster timeline)

Path 2: Pan-European Unicorn Scale & Strategic Exit (Years 8-10)

Profile: - UK ARR: £83-104M (mature market) - EU ARR: £60-81M (4-5 scaled markets) - Combined ARR: £143-185M - Pan-European category leadership ("verified raw" across multiple geographies) - Proof infrastructure scaled (200+ batch reports per market) - Multi-country vet endorsement networks

Valuation: - Multiple: 8-12× ARR (premium for pan-European scale + tech platform) - Enterprise Value: £1.14B - £2.22B

Why Premium Multiples (8-12×): - ✓ Category infrastructure (not just brand): Verified standard established across 5-6 geographies - ✓ Technology platform: AI-native ops + proof infrastructure creates operational leverage acquirer can't easily replicate - ✓ SaaS-like margins: 42-47% contribution vs 30-35% traditional CPG (margin structure resembles tech, not food) - ✓ Regulatory gold standard: FEDIAF Growth & Reproduction pan-European compliance - ✓ Multi-geography defensibility: Proof data + vet endorsements + operational discipline in each market - ✓ Strategic value: Acquirer gains verified raw category ownership across EU's largest pet food markets

Acquirer Profile: - Nestl×, Mars, Royal Canin (strategic CPG consolidating premium pan-European) - Buying category infrastructure + technology platform + multi-market penetration - "Build vs buy" analysis strongly favors acquisition (36-42 month competitive lag × 5 markets = impossible to replicate organically)

Timeline: 8-10 years from launch
Risk Profile: Higher (multi-country execution, longer timeline, Series B required)

The Strategic Decision Point (Year 5-6)¶

Both paths start identically: Prove UK model (Seed), scale UK + EU pilots (Series A).

Decision comes at Year 5-6 based on: - ✓ UK Growth Case achieved (£70-89M ARR)? - ✓ EU pilots successful (£5-8M ARR, strong unit economics)? - ✓ Founder appetite for Series B and multi-country scale? - ✓ Market conditions favorable (strategic acquirer interest, Series B availability)?

If YES to all: Raise Series B (£30-50M), execute Path 2, target £1B+ outcome.

If NO or MIXED: Execute Path 1, strategic exit at £490-890M (still exceptional outcome).

Key insight: Path 1 is the dependency floor (strong exit without European complexity). Path 2 is the upside optionality (£1B+ if execution continues strong).

Capital Plan & Funding Pathway¶

Pre-Seed (Self-Funded: £50-75k)¶

Purpose: Validate demand, retention, and unit economics through Phase A pilot

Allocation: - 200-500kg pilot production runs - London smoke test acquisition (Meta ads, Google) - Lab testing (2-3 batches) - Operations portal development - 3PL and co-packer negotiations

Target Customer Count: 50-100 pilot customers Validation Metrics: CAC £70-90, Box-2 >=65%, operational systems functional

Option A (£70k): Faster learning, higher ad volume, more confidence for Seed
Option B (£50k): Lean pilot, sufficient if CAC/retention strong early

The £50-75k pre-seed will be self-funded by the founder, ensuring complete alignment and enabling Protocol Raw to enter Seed round with fully validated unit economics, proven retention, and locked co-packer step-downs.

Seed Round (Month 6-7): £1.0-1.5M¶

Purpose: Execute Phase B (London scale + City 2 launch)

Key Use of Funds: - Working capital: Inventory, batch production scaling (£300-450k) - Acquisition: CAC at £70-90 for 7,000-10,000 customers (£500-750k) - Operations Lead hire: Non-technical, vendor/exception management (£35-45k + recruitment) - 3PL transition: London fulfillment infrastructure (£50-100k setup) - Lab partnerships: Establish UKAS relationships, test certification (£30-50k) - Founder salary: Sustainable runway (£40-60k/year)

Milestones to Achieve: - ✓ 7,000-10,000 customers (London + City 2) - ✓ £7-10M ARR run-rate - ✓ Box-2 retention >=70% validated at scale - ✓ Contribution £24-28/box (Normalized) with path to £26-32 visible - ✓ 3-5 vet endorsements secured - ✓ Co-packer step-down to £2.80-3.10/kg achieved - ✓ CPD trending to £14-18 with London density

Seed Trigger: Pilot success (300-500 customers), 70%+ Box-2, strong unit economics, named lab partnership, initial vet endorsements

Runway: 12-18 months to Series A trigger

Series A (Month 18-20): £10-20M¶

Purpose: UK national expansion + EU pilot launches + manufacturing execution (if Option B chosen at Month 16-17)

Note: The manufacturing decision is made at Month 16-17, before this raise. The decision determines whether Series A is £10-15M (Option A: continue co-packing) or £12-17M (Option B: build facility). See Manufacturing Decision Framework below.

Key Use of Funds: - UK national expansion: 4-6 additional cities beyond London (£3-5M in CAC + working capital) - EU pilots: Ireland + Netherlands launches (£2-3M combined) - Local 3PL partnerships - Lab certifications (TÜV, COFRAC equivalent) - Vet endorsement network building - Localized marketing (minimal translation for Ireland, some for Netherlands) - Manufacturing facility (Option B only): £1.25-2.0M capex - Facility lease and fit-out: 8,000-15,000 sq ft, Midlands/North location (£250-400k) - Processing & packing equipment (£500-800k) - Cold storage installation (£300-500k) - QA, monitoring, contingency (£200-300k) - Annual fixed opex (steady state): £400-600k/year (facility, utilities, 6-8 production staff, QA, maintenance, insurance) - DEFRA licensing and food safety certifications - Production Manager + 5-7 production staff - Team expansion: - Customer Success Lead (retention focus) - EU Operations Lead (manages Ireland + Netherlands) - Fractional CFO (financial controls, reporting) - Infrastructure scaling: - Multi-region 3PL partnerships - Enhanced monitoring and automation - Proof infrastructure maturity: - 50-100 batch reports published - 10-20 vet endorsements - Category leadership positioning

Month 12-14: Technical Bandwidth Assessment¶

Context: The manufacturing decision (Month 16-17) requires extending the operations platform into new domains: raw material inventory, production scheduling, yield management, equipment monitoring. The founder designs and owns this architecture. The question is implementation bandwidth.

Decision: Can founder capacity support manufacturing domain extension alongside CEO responsibilities?

Inputs: - Time allocation data (system maintenance vs. extension vs. leadership) - Manufacturing SOP scoping complete (domain entities, state machines, invariants defined) - Operations Lead and Marketing Lead fully ramped and operating independently

Decision Hierarchy:

Default assumption: Founder designs manufacturing architecture and implements extensions within the existing operations OS
If bandwidth constrained: Engage fractional implementation help (contract, time-boxed, ~£5-15k)
Lane 1: Manufacturing domain translation (senior food production advisor, 10-20 hrs total)
Lane 2: Implementation burst capacity (contract systems engineer, implements founder-designed functions)
If still bottlenecked: 12-18 month Senior Systems Engineer contract (~£60-80k), funded from contingency or incorporated into Series A raise

Constraint: Any external help works below the architecture line. Founder retains authority over: - Schema design and event semantics - Release logic and QA gate definitions - Invariants ("what must never happen") - Final review and merge authority

What this protects: The 18-24 month technical moat depends on architectural coherence. Fractional help accelerates implementation; it does not blur ownership.

Outcome: By Month 16-17, the business has sufficient technical capacity—founder-led or augmented—to execute the manufacturing decision without compromising platform integrity.

Manufacturing Decision: A Conviction Bet at Series A (Month 16-17)

The manufacturing decision is made at Month 16-17, before the Series A raise. This is a conviction bet based on Phase B trajectory data, not proof of £30-40M ARR (which won't exist until Series A is deployed).

Option B is only chosen if all Phase B thresholds are met; this is a high-confidence, not mixed-signal, decision.

Competitive Precedent Supports Early Commitment: - Bella & Duke: Built in-house facility at ~£11-19M revenue (FY2021-22). Gross margin improved from 31% to 44% (+13 points). - Butternut Box: Built Rudie's Kitchen (200,000 sq ft integrated facility) at ~£10-20M revenue (2020-21). Created foundation for £280M+ raises and pan-European expansion.

Both competitors made the manufacturing decision at the revenue stage Protocol Raw will be at during Series A—not after reaching £30-40M ARR.

Decision Inputs (Month 16-17):

Metric	Threshold for Option B (In-House)	Signal
Box-2 Retention	≥70% sustained at scale (3+ cohorts)	Product-market fit validated
City 2 Replication	4-month playbook achieving 1,000+ customers	Scalability proven
Co-packer COGS Trajectory	Hitting negotiated step-downs (£2.80-3.10/kg by M12)	Supply chain executing
CAC Efficiency	£70-90 blended, stable or improving	Acquisition economics healthy
Referral Rate	Trending to 25%	Organic growth flywheel building
Path 2 Intent	High conviction on EU expansion	Manufacturing savings fund EU CAC

Decision Framework:

✓ Choose Option B (In-House Manufacturing) if: - Phase B metrics are strong across all thresholds above - Founder and investors have high conviction on growth trajectory - Path 2 (EU expansion) is the likely strategic direction - Co-packer relationship shows COGS floor risk (unable to hit £2.40/kg target)

✓ Choose Option A (Continue Co-Packing) if: - Phase B metrics are mixed or uncertain - Retention or CAC showing concerning trends - Path 1 (UK-only exit) is preferred strategic direction - Capital preservation is critical (macro uncertainty, fundraising challenges)

The decision determines Series A raise size: - Option A (Co-packing): Raise £10-15M - Option B (In-house): Raise £12-17M (includes £1.25-2.0M manufacturing capex + £400-600k first-year opex)

Unit Economics Comparison:

Factor	Co-Packing (Option A)	In-House (Option B)
Capex Required	£0	£1.25-2.0M
Annual Fixed Opex	Included in COGS	£400-600k/year
Target COGS	£2.40-2.70/kg (floor)	£1.80-2.20/kg
Contribution/box	£30-32 (ceiling)	£36-42
Annual contribution uplift (30k customers)	Baseline	+£3.5-3.9M/year
Quality control	Limited visibility	Full control
Innovation speed	Slow (co-packer dependent)	Fast (in-house R&D)
Risk profile	Co-packer dependency	Operational complexity
Exit multiple impact	8-10× ARR	10-12× ARR
Payback period	N/A	12-18 months at 30k+ customers

Cost Basis: Option B estimates are based on UK industry benchmarks (Bella & Duke facility investment, industry capex data), adjusted for Protocol Raw's phased approach. Phase C facility is sized for ~30k customers with expansion optionality; it is not the end state. Detailed facility planning, equipment specification, and site selection will be completed as part of the Month 16-17 manufacturing decision process, with specialist validation prior to Series A. See Appendix: Option B Manufacturing Cost Methodology for full details.

Why This is the Right Timing:

Phase B provides sufficient signal. 18 months of cohort data, City 2 replication proof, and validated unit economics are enough to make a conviction bet—the same data Bella & Duke and Butternut Box used.
Waiting costs margin. Every month at co-packer COGS ceiling (£2.40-2.70/kg) vs in-house (£1.80-2.20/kg) sacrifices £6-10/box contribution during the highest-growth period.
Investors fund conviction, not certainty. Series A investors expect to back trajectory, not proven £30-40M ARR. The manufacturing decision is part of the growth thesis they're funding.
Competitive moat compounds faster. Proprietary manufacturing + proof infrastructure + AI-native ops creates a more defensible position than any single advantage alone.

The manufacturing decision is not revisited annually. Once committed at Series A, execution focus shifts to facility buildout and operational excellence. The only subsequent decision point is whether to replicate the model in EU (Series B).

Series A Allocation if Option B (In-House) Chosen: - UK expansion: £4-5M - EU pilots: £2-3M - Manufacturing facility (capex): £1.25-2.0M - Manufacturing operations (Year 1 opex): £400-600k - Team: £1-2M (18 months) - Total: £12-17M

Series A Allocation if Option A (Co-Packing) Chosen: - UK expansion: £4-6M - EU pilots: £2-3M - Team: £1-2M (18 months) - Working capital buffer: £2-3M - Total: £10-15M

Milestones to Achieve (End of Series A, Month 36-42): - ✓ UK: 30,000-40,000 customers, £30-40M ARR - ✓ EU Pilots: 5,000-8,000 customers, £5-8M ARR - ✓ Repeatable city playbook (~4 months to 1,000+ subscribers per city) - ✓ CPD: £14-18 UK, £16-20 EU pilots - ✓ Contribution: £30-32/box (co-packed) or £36-42/box (in-house) - ✓ COGS: £2.40-2.70/kg (co-packed) or £1.80-2.20/kg (in-house) - ✓ Fresh market conversion beginning (Butternut Box customers discovering Protocol Raw) - ✓ 10-20 vet endorsements (UK + EU) - ✓ International logistics validated (Ireland and Netherlands operational) - ✓ Manufacturing operational (if Option B chosen) or co-packer long-term agreement signed (if Option A)

Series A Trigger: UK £7-10M ARR, repeatable city playbook proven, clear path to national category leadership

Runway: 24-30 months to decision point (Path 1 exit or Path 2 Series B)

Decision Point (Year 5-6): Path 1 vs Path 2¶

At this stage, Protocol Raw will have: - UK ARR: £70-89M (Growth Case achieved) - EU Pilots: £5-8M ARR (Ireland + Netherlands validated) - Proof data: 150-200 published batch reports - Vet network: 15-25 endorsements - Category position: UK market leader in verified raw

Path 1: UK-Only Strategic Exit - No Series B required - Focus on UK optimization and margin expansion - EU pilots remain as validation/optionality - Strategic exit discussions Year 5-7 - Exit value: £490-890M (7-10× ARR) - Lower risk, faster timeline

Path 2: Pan-European Unicorn Scale (Raise Series B) - Series B: £30-50M - Multi-country EU expansion (Germany, France, Benelux, Nordics) - Target £143M+ combined ARR by Year 8 - Strategic exit discussions Year 8-10 - Exit value: £1.14B-£2.22B (8-12× ARR) - Higher risk, longer timeline, exceptional outcome

Series B (Year 5-6, if Path 2 chosen): £30-50M¶

Purpose: EU multi-market expansion to reach £100M+ combined ARR + manufacturing scale (if not done in Series A)

Key Use of Funds: - Germany launch: £5-8M (largest EU market, major co-packer partnership OR manufacturing facility, lab certifications, CAC for 25k-35k customers) - France launch: £5-8M (premium market, localization, vet network building) - Benelux scale: £3-5M (expand Netherlands pilot, add Belgium) - Nordics launch: £4-6M (3 markets with shared infrastructure) - Manufacturing strategy (if not executed in Series A): - Option A: UK in-house facility scale-up (£2-3M additional capex for capacity expansion if facility built in Series A) - Option B: EU manufacturing facility (£5-8M for dedicated EU production to serve Germany/France/Benelux with lower logistics costs) - Located in Netherlands or Germany (central EU distribution) - Serves 4-5 EU markets from single facility - Reduces EU COGS to £1.80-2.20/kg vs £2.60-3.00/kg co-packed - EU contribution: £32-38/box vs £26-30/box co-packed - Payback: 24-30 months at 50k+ EU customers - Option C: Continue co-packing (preserve capital if manufacturing not critical path, accept lower margins) - Pan-European team: - EU Regional Director - Country Operations Leads (1 per major market) - Multi-lingual Customer Success - EU Regulatory & Compliance Lead - If manufacturing: EU Production Manager + 3-5 production staff - Technology scaling: - Multi-language support - Regional cloud infrastructure - Expanded monitoring across geographies - Working capital: Multi-country inventory and cash conversion cycle

Manufacturing Decision Impact on Series B:

Scenario	Series B Size	COGS (EU)	Contribution (EU)	Exit Multiple
Continue co-packing	£30-35M	£2.60-3.00/kg	£26-30/box	8-10× (operational leverage lower)
UK facility + EU co-pack	£35-40M	£2.40-2.80/kg	£28-34/box	9-11× (partial manufacturing capability)
UK + EU facilities	£40-50M	£1.80-2.20/kg	£32-38/box	10-12× (full proprietary manufacturing)

Strategic rationale for in-house manufacturing at scale: - ✓ Margin expansion: £6-12 additional contribution per box = £4-9M annual profit at 100k customers - ✓ Quality control: Full visibility and control over formulation, testing, packaging - ✓ Innovation speed: Can launch format variations, limited editions, R&D without co-packer delays - ✓ Strategic exit value: Proprietary manufacturing capability commands premium multiples (10-12× vs 8-10×) - ✓ Supply chain resilience: Not dependent on single co-packer, can dual-source or fully own - ✓ Brand equity: "Made by Protocol Raw" vs "Made for Protocol Raw" (trust signal)

Recommended approach: - Series A (Month 16-17 decision): Build UK facility if Phase B metrics are strong across all thresholds and Path 2 (EU expansion) is the likely direction. This is a conviction bet based on trajectory, not proof of £30-40M ARR. - Series B (Year 5-6, if Path 2 chosen): Add EU facility if UK manufacturing is successful and EU markets are scaling as expected. - Key principle: The manufacturing decision is made once at Series A. Don't revisit annually—commit and execute.

Milestones to Achieve (Year 8): - ✓ Germany: 28,000-32,000 customers, £24-29M ARR (£850-920 ARPU) - ✓ France: 18,000-22,000 customers, £15-21M ARR (£850-950 ARPU) - ✓ Benelux: 14,000-18,000 customers, £14-19M ARR (£990-1,040 ARPU) - ✓ Nordics: 10,000-13,000 customers, £11-15M ARR (£1,080-1,150 ARPU) - ✓ UK sustained: 80,000-100,000 customers, £83-104M ARR (£1,040 ARPU) - ✓ Combined ARR: £143-185M - ✓ EU Blended ARPU: £850-950 (reflects portfolio maturity mix) - ✓ COGS: £1.80-2.20/kg (in-house) vs £2.40-2.70/kg (co-packed) - ✓ Contribution: £36-42/box (in-house) vs £30-32/box (co-packed) - ✓ Pan-European category leadership - ✓ 150-200 batch reports per market (proof infrastructure scaled) - ✓ Multi-country vet endorsement networks - ✓ Proprietary manufacturing capability (if Option B chosen)

Series B Trigger: UK at £70-89M ARR, EU pilots successful at £5-8M ARR, clear path to multi-market scale

Runway: 30-36 months to exit discussions

Total Capital Required by Path & Manufacturing Strategy¶

Path 1 (UK-Only Exit):

Option A: Continue Co-Packing - Pre-Seed: £50-75k (self-funded) - Seed: £1.0-1.5M - Series A: £10-15M (lower end, no manufacturing) - Total Raised: £11-16.5M - COGS: £2.40-2.70/kg - Contribution: £30-32/box - Exit Value: £490-890M - Return on Capital: 30-81× (assuming £11M raised, £490-890M exit)

Option B: In-House Manufacturing - Pre-Seed: £50-75k (self-funded) - Seed: £1.0-1.5M - Series A: £12-17M (includes £1.25-2.0M manufacturing capex) - Total Raised: £16-21.5M - COGS: £1.80-2.20/kg - Contribution: £36-42/box - Exit Value: £550-950M (higher margins → higher valuation) - Return on Capital: 26-59× (assuming £16M raised, £550-950M exit)

Path 2 (Pan-European Unicorn):

Option A: Continue Co-Packing Throughout - Pre-Seed: £50-75k (self-funded) - Seed: £1.0-1.5M - Series A: £10-15M - Series B: £30-35M (no manufacturing) - Total Raised: £41-51.5M - COGS: £2.40-3.00/kg - Contribution: £26-32/box - Exit Value: £1.14B-£1.85B (8-10× ARR at lower margins) - Return on Capital: 22-45× (assuming £51.5M raised)

Option B: UK In-House Only - Pre-Seed: £50-75k (self-funded) - Seed: £1.0-1.5M - Series A: £12-17M (includes UK manufacturing) - Series B: £35-40M (EU co-packed) - Total Raised: £48-58.5M - COGS: UK £1.80-2.20/kg, EU £2.60-3.00/kg - Contribution: UK £36-42/box, EU £26-30/box - Exit Value: £1.29B-£2.04B (9-11× ARR with mixed margins) - Return on Capital: 22-42× (assuming £58.5M raised)

Option C: UK + EU In-House Manufacturing - Pre-Seed: £50-75k (self-funded) - Seed: £1.0-1.5M - Series A: £12-17M (includes UK manufacturing) - Series B: £40-50M (includes EU manufacturing) - Total Raised: £53-68.5M - COGS: £1.80-2.20/kg (both UK and EU) - Contribution: £36-42/box (both UK and EU) - Exit Value: £1.43B-£2.22B (10-12× ARR for premium margins + manufacturing) - Return on Capital: 21-42× (assuming £68.5M raised)

Manufacturing Decision Framework Summary¶

The Core Principle: Manufacturing is a conviction bet made at Series A (Month 16-17), based on Phase B trajectory data. Competitors Bella & Duke and Butternut Box both made this decision at £10-20M revenue—the same stage Protocol Raw will be at during Series A.

UK Manufacturing Decision (Series A, Month 16-17):

If Phase B Shows...	Decision	Series A Size
Strong metrics across all thresholds + Path 2 intent	Option B: Build facility	£12-17M
Mixed metrics OR Path 1 preferred OR capital constraints	Option A: Continue co-packing	£10-15M

Decision inputs: Box-2 retention ≥70%, City 2 replication working, COGS step-downs hitting, CAC £70-90 stable, referral rate trending to 25%.

Option B is only chosen if all Phase B thresholds are met; this is a high-confidence, not mixed-signal, decision.

EU Manufacturing Decision (Series B, Year 5-6, if Path 2 chosen):

If UK Manufacturing Shows...	Decision	Series B Allocation
Successful and profitable + EU scaling well	Build EU facility	£5-8M capex
Struggled or underperformed OR EU slower than expected	Continue EU co-packing	£0 capex

The manufacturing decision is not revisited annually. Once committed at Series A, execution focus shifts to facility buildout and operational excellence. The only subsequent decision point is whether to replicate the model in EU (Series B).

Capital Efficiency Advantage (With Manufacturing Strategy)¶

Traditional CPG path to £100M ARR: - Requires £80-120M capital (lower margins, higher CAC, ops headcount scaling, manufacturing infrastructure) - Typical COGS: £2.80-3.50/kg (outsourced co-packing) - Contribution margins: 25-30% - 5-8× return on capital - 10-12 year timeline

Protocol Raw path to £100M+ ARR (Path 2 with in-house manufacturing): - Requires £56-71.5M capital (AI-native ops leverage, in-house manufacturing, 42-47% margins) - COGS: £1.80-2.20/kg (in-house) vs £2.40-3.00/kg (co-packed) - Contribution margins: 42-47% (in-house) vs 35-38% (co-packed) - 17-32× return on capital - 8-10 year timeline

Why we're capital efficient: - 10-19× operational leverage (automation vs headcount) - 42-47% contribution margins with in-house manufacturing (vs 30-35% traditional, vs 35-38% co-packed) - £400-600k annual savings per 50k customers (in-house vs co-packed) - Single-SKU reduces working capital needs - AI-native platform scales without proportional cost increases - Proof infrastructure creates retention moat (lowers CAC over time through referrals) - Proprietary manufacturing = strategic exit premium (10-12× multiples vs 8-10× outsourced)

Manufacturing Impact on Exit Valuation:

At £120M combined ARR (Year 8, Path 2):

Strategy	COGS	Contribution Margin	EBITDA (estimated)	Multiple	Exit Value
Fully Co-Packed	£2.60-3.00/kg	30-35%	£25-30M	8-10× ARR	£960M-£1.2B
UK In-House Only	Mixed	35-40%	£32-38M	9-11× ARR	£1.08B-£1.32B
UK + EU In-House	£1.80-2.20/kg	42-47%	£40-48M	10-12× ARR	£1.2B-£1.44B

Strategic value of proprietary manufacturing: - Control over quality, innovation, and brand integrity - Margin structure resembles tech/SaaS (42-47%) not traditional CPG (30-35%) - Supply chain resilience and independence - R&D capability for format innovation - "Made by Protocol Raw" brand equity vs "Made for Protocol Raw" - £200-400M additional exit value vs fully outsourced (at £120M ARR)

Co-packer Strategy¶

Phase A-B (Months 0-18): - Pilot runs of 200-500 kg; no exclusivity; transparent QA - Data exports (temps, yields, test certs) required after each run - Written quotes with volume step-downs (validation artifact) - Negotiate explicit COGS trajectory: £3.20-3.60/kg (Phase A) → £2.80-3.10/kg (Month 12) → £2.40-2.70/kg (Month 18 target)

Manufacturing Decision Point (Month 16-17): - Evaluate Phase B metrics against decision thresholds (see Manufacturing Decision Framework) - If Option B (in-house) chosen: Begin facility planning during Series A raise process - If Option A (co-packing) chosen: Negotiate long-term volume agreement with COGS floor protection

If Option B Chosen - Transition Planning: - Month 18-20: Series A closes with manufacturing capex included - Month 20-24: Facility lease/fit-out, equipment procurement, DEFRA licensing - Month 24-30: Parallel production (co-packer + in-house), quality validation - Month 30+: Full transition to in-house, co-packer relationship winds down or becomes backup capacity

3PL¶

Frozen specialist with high London hit rate
Written CPD quotes at 100 and 500 drops/week (validation artifact)
Pre-negotiated hyper-local carrier pilot terms (validation artifact)
Carrier SLAs: Max depot dwell, cold-chain handoffs, probe placement, penalties linked to frozen-solid KPI

Nutritional Verification & FEDIAF Alignment¶

Objective: Analytically verify the existing formulation meets FEDIAF Growth and Reproduction reference values to claim "independently verified complete & balanced for all life stages." This removes a key barrier (30% of consumer concerns) but is table stakes, not a primary differentiator.

We are proving the existing formula is complete for all life stages (puppies, adults, pregnant/lactating), not creating a new SKU
Messaging timing: Claim moves from "designed to be complete" to "independently verified complete for all life stages" only once the panel is published

Team & Hiring (Founder-Led with Strategic Execution Support)¶

Founding Team¶

Anton Sealy (Founder & CEO): - Background: Data science + systematic operational design - Role: Systems architect (permanent), product development, brand, fundraising - Equity: Founder shares (majority ownership retained through Series A)

Critical principle: Founder retains systems architecture authority permanently. The AI-native operations moat depends on founder's technical depth—this is not delegated to hired operations leadership.

Phase A (Months 0-6): Founder + Jamie (Commercial Advisor)¶

Founder: - All systems architecture (database design, automation logic, Make.com scenarios) - Product development and formulation (FEDIAF compliance verification) - Brand development and positioning ("proof, not promises" messaging) - Customer acquisition (paid ads, vet outreach, referral program design) - Fulfillment execution (founder-led during Phase A, £0 cash labor cost) - Fundraising (Seed preparation and investor outreach)

Phase A Fulfillment Note: Founder manages all fulfillment operations personally during Months 0-6. This preserves cash but requires imputing labor costs (£2.25/box) for Normalized financial modeling to ensure sustainable unit economics.

Jamie Leacock (Commercial Advisor, ~3-4 hrs/week): - Background: 20 years FMCG and national channel sales experience (currently employed full-time at Hasbro) - Relationship: Brother of founder; advisor to True Prey Ltd (t/a Protocol Pet) - Role: * Co-packer sourcing, vetting, and commercial negotiation * 3PL relationship management and CPD optimization strategy * Supplier quote reviews and cost model validation * Strategic sounding board for commercial and operational decisions * Treats supplier sourcing (Month 9, Phase B) - Compensation: 0.75-1.0% equity (2-year vest, quarterly, 3-month cliff from start date) - Time commitment: ~3-4 hours per week, flexible (async + monthly ops sync calls) - Status: Advisor only (not full-time employee; Hasbro employment fully respected and non-competitive)

Jamie's Value: - De-risks co-packer selection and commercial terms (FMCG expertise translates directly) - Handles supplier negotiations founder lacks bandwidth for during Phase A - Provides commercial sounding board without diluting founder's systems architecture focus - Does NOT touch tech stack, automation logic, or day-to-day operations

Phase A Financial Model: - Founder: £0 salary (personal runway via employment settlement ~£250k gross) - Jamie: £0 cash compensation (equity-only advisor) - Burn rate: £15-25k/month (inventory, packaging, marketing, tools) - Runway: 10-12 months to Seed raise (Month 6)

Phase B (Months 7-18): Founder + Jamie + Operations Lead¶

Operations Lead (Month 7-9, First Post-Seed Hire):

Profile: Founder's partner, currently Agent Onboarding Supervisor at RIA Money Transfers. Promoted to supervisor rapidly due to strong process execution and attention to detail. Masters in Social Work (Spain); moved to London in early 20s seeking better opportunities. Hard-working, meticulous, proven track record scaling operational systems in compliance-heavy environment.

Why This Hire Works: - Process excellence: Demonstrated ability to build, document, and execute operational processes at scale - Compliance rigor: Experience in regulated financial services environment translates directly to FSA/DEFRA food safety compliance - Meticulous execution: RIA's agent onboarding requires zero-error accuracy; same standard needed for batch verification and proof system integrity - Rapid learner: Promoted to supervisor quickly despite no prior network in London—demonstrates drive and capability - Cultural alignment: Shares founder's systematic, evidence-based approach; understands "proof, not promises" instinctively - Founder-level commitment: 0.5% equity stake + mission alignment ensures long-term dedication

Role: - Reports to: Founder (systems architect) - Remit: Day-to-day operational execution across fulfillment, customer success, compliance, and logistics

Core Responsibilities:

Customer Operations: - Own customer service execution (Intercom/Gorgias, SOP adherence, NPS tracking) - Execute churn intervention playbooks (at-risk customer outreach, retention protocols) - Design and refine onboarding sequences (draws on RIA onboarding supervisor experience) - Surface customer insights and operational friction points to founder

Fulfillment & Logistics: - Coordinate daily with 3PL (order fulfillment, delivery exceptions, SLA tracking) - Execute CPD optimization tactics (route analysis, packaging tests, carrier coordination) - Run temperature audit program (sampling, data collection, intervention protocols) - Monitor automated workflows (Make.com alert triage, escalate errors to founder)

Compliance & Quality: - Maintain FSA documentation and audit readiness (draws on financial services compliance background) - Coordinate lab sample submission and results verification - Execute batch release protocols (verify clearance before shipment) - Own proof portal quality checks (QR codes, PDF publishing, data integrity)

Product Operations: - Support treats launch logistics (pick/pack SOP updates, FEFO inventory management) - Coordinate with Jamie (commercial advisor) on co-packer production schedules - Manage inventory levels using founder's forecasting models

Does NOT Own: - System architecture (database, automation logic, integration design) - Make.com scenario development (founder builds; Operations Lead monitors) - Strategic technology decisions (founder retains permanently)

Compensation: - Base: £50k annually - Equity: 0.5% (4-year vest, quarterly, 1-year cliff from start date) - Total package: ~£55-60k equivalent at seed valuation

Success Metrics (Month 12 Evaluation): - Operational KPIs consistently met: * Frozen-solid delivery ≥95% * Lab turnaround ≤3 days average * On-time delivery ≥90% * Customer service NPS ≥50 - Founder freed ≥50% for high-leverage systems architecture and fundraising - Treats launch executed smoothly (≥20% attach rate by Month 13) - Zero FSA compliance issues or audit findings - Cultural exemplar: Models "systematic, not emotional" operational approach

Timing Rationale: - Month 7-9 hire (post-seed) allows founder to architect systems solo in Phase A - Seed funding de-risks compensation - 3PL transition (Month 7-8) creates natural inflection point for operational support - Phase B growth trajectory (4k-10k customers) requires dedicated execution resource

Jamie's Continued Role (Phase B): - Advisory relationship continues (3-4 hrs/week through Month 24) - Operations Lead coordinates with Jamie on 3PL/co-packer day-to-day - Jamie handles supplier negotiations and commercial terms - Clear division: Operations Lead = execution; Jamie = commercial strategy/relationships - No full-time conversion: Advisory relationship winds down Month 24 after 2-year commitment

Marketing Lead (Month 12): - Reports to: Founder - Owns: Paid acquisition, creative testing, referral program, veterinary partnerships - Compensation: £55-70k + 0.3-0.5% equity - Hire trigger: When Phase B CAC scaling requires dedicated marketing focus (founder bandwidth constraint)

Month 12-14: Technical Bandwidth Assessment¶

Context: The manufacturing decision (Month 16-17) requires extending the operations platform into new domains. This assessment determines whether founder capacity is sufficient or whether fractional/contract help is needed.

Decision Hierarchy: 1. Default: Founder designs and implements manufacturing system extensions 2. If bandwidth constrained: Fractional implementation help (~£5-15k) 3. If still bottlenecked: 12-18 month contract engineer (~£60-80k)

Key constraint: Any external technical help works below the architecture line. Founder retains authority over schema design, release logic, and system invariants.

See "Month 12-14: Technical Bandwidth Assessment" in Scale Path section for full decision framework.

Phase C (Months 19-36): Building Leadership Team¶

CMO (Month 20): - Owns: All marketing, brand, acquisition, retention - Reports to: Founder (CEO) - Compensation: £80-100k + 0.5-0.8% equity

Supply Chain Director (Month 22): - Owns: Co-packer relationships, logistics network, inventory management - Reports to: Founder (CEO) - Compensation: £70-90k + 0.4-0.6% equity - Note: Works with Jamie (advisor) during transition; Jamie's advisory relationship winds down Month 24

Head of Customer Success (Month 24): - Owns: Retention programs, customer education, NPS, support team (2-3 FTEs) - Reports to: CMO - Compensation: £60-75k + 0.3-0.5% equity

EU Operations Lead (Month 30, if EU pilots successful): - Owns: EU logistics, regulatory compliance, local partnerships - Reports to: Supply Chain Director - Compensation: £55-70k + 0.3-0.4% equity

If Option B (In-House Manufacturing) Chosen at Month 16-17:¶

Production Manager (Month 18-20): - Owns: Day-to-day facility operations, production scheduling, staff management, yield optimisation - Reports to: Founder initially, then COO/Head of Operations - Profile: 5+ years food manufacturing experience, ideally frozen/chilled; HACCP certified; people management experience - Compensation: £45-55k + 0.2-0.3% equity - Critical: Must embrace systematic approach; works within founder-designed production systems, does not redesign them

Production Staff (Month 18-22, ramping): - 6-8 FTE at steady state (single shift) - Mix of: Production operatives (4-5), QA technician (1), Maintenance/engineering support (1 fractional or shared) - Compensation: £25-32k per operative, £35-40k for QA technician - Hiring approach: Production Manager hires team; founder approves for cultural fit

Facility Ramp Timeline (Option B):

Month	Milestone
18-19	Production Manager hired; facility fit-out completing
19-20	First production staff (2-3); pilot batches
20-22	Full team (6-8 FTE); co-packer transition begins
22-24	Co-packer wind-down complete; facility at steady state

Integration with Operations Lead: - Operations Lead continues to own customer operations, logistics coordination, compliance documentation - Production Manager owns facility; Operations Lead owns everything else - Both report to founder; clear swim lanes prevent overlap - At COO evaluation (Month 24-30), decision on unified operations leadership structure

Phase C: COO Evaluation (Month 24-30)¶

Key Decision: Is Operations Lead the right person to scale to COO (managing 35k-45k customers, national logistics, and—if Option B—manufacturing operations)?

If Option A (Co-Packing) was chosen:

If Operations Lead has scaled exceptionally: - Promote to Head of Operations (Month 24) - Compensation refresh: £60-75k + equity top-up (0.2-0.3% additional) - Begin building ops team underneath (CS Lead, Logistics Coordinator)

If Operations Lead is execution-strong but not strategic/scalable: - Keep as Senior Operations Manager (valuable contributor, not leadership track) - Hire experienced COO (Month 24-30): * Profile: 5-10 years food/frozen operations, scaled D2C or CPG brand to 20k+ customers * Proven track record: Managed multi-city logistics, built ops teams * Compensation: £70-90k + 0.8-1.2% equity * Reports to: Founder (CEO) * Remit: Owns ALL operational execution (fulfillment, logistics, CS, compliance)

If Option B (In-House Manufacturing) was chosen:

The evaluation is more consequential because COO must also oversee manufacturing.

If Operations Lead has scaled exceptionally AND Production Manager is strong: - Promote Operations Lead to Head of Operations (Month 24) - Production Manager reports to Head of Operations - Clear structure: Head of Ops owns logistics + customer ops; Production Manager owns facility - Compensation refresh: £65-80k + equity top-up (0.3-0.4% additional)

If unified manufacturing + operations leadership needed: - Hire experienced COO with manufacturing experience (Month 24-30): * Profile: 5-10 years food/frozen operations WITH manufacturing management experience * Proven track record: Managed multi-city logistics, owned manufacturing transitions, built ops teams * Compensation: £80-100k + 1.0-1.5% equity * Reports to: Founder (CEO) * Remit: Owns ALL operational execution INCLUDING manufacturing facility * Relationship with founder: Founder retains systems architecture; COO owns operational delivery across all functions - Operations Lead becomes Senior Operations Manager (logistics + customer ops) - Production Manager reports to COO

Critical (Both Options): COO must have food/frozen supply chain experience to navigate regulatory complexity (FSA, DEFRA, FEDIAF compliance) and—if Path 2 chosen—EU expansion.

Jamie's Exit: Advisory relationship naturally winds down Month 24 (2-year commitment complete). Founder expresses gratitude, maintains relationship, equity fully vested, no full-time conversion.

Founder's Permanent Role: Systems Architect + CEO¶

Throughout all phases, founder retains: - System architecture authority (automation logic, database design, API integrations) - Technical roadmap and platform development decisions - Strategic direction (market positioning, product strategy, fundraising) - "Proof, not promises" brand guardian (ensures all decisions align with systematic ethos)

What founder delegates over time: - Operational execution (Operations Lead → COO) - Marketing execution and creative (Marketing Lead → CMO) - Customer success tactics (CS Lead → Head of CS) - Supply chain relationships (Jamie advisor → Supply Chain Director)

This structure protects the 18-24 month technical moat while scaling execution capacity appropriately.

Contract Support (As Needed):

Type	When	Cost	Purpose
Food safety consultant	Phase A-B	£2-5k	FSA compliance, HACCP documentation
Manufacturing domain advisor	Month 12-14 (if needed)	£5-10k (10-20 hrs)	Translate factory realities into system requirements
Contract systems engineer	Month 12-14 (if needed)	£60-80k (12-18 mo)	Implementation capacity for manufacturing extensions
Food manufacturing consultant	Month 16-17	£5-15k	Facility sizing, equipment spec, staffing model validation
Commercial property advisor	Month 16-17	£0-5k	Site identification, lease terms

Principle: Fractional help accelerates implementation; it does not blur architectural ownership. All technical contractors work under founder direction, implementing founder-designed systems.

Success Metrics (UPDATED in v2.1)¶

Primary Metrics¶

Metric	Phase A Target	Phase B Target
Box-2 Retention	≥70%	≥72%
Blended CAC	£70-90	£70-85
CPD (Normalized)	£19-21	£14-18
Contribution/box	£18-24 → £22-26	£24-28

Secondary Metrics¶

Metric	Phase A Target	Phase B Target
Referral %	15-25%	25%
Proof Portal Engagement	>10% QR scan rate	>15% QR scan rate
Frozen-solid delivery	95%	97%

New Metrics (v2.1)¶

Metric	Phase A Target	Phase B Target
Advocacy Language	Baseline established	>50% outcome-framed
Health Data Completeness	>80% baseline capture	>70% checkpoint completion
Institutional Progress	1-2 warm relationships	Advisory board announced

Customer Advocacy Language Tracking¶

Why This Matters:

"Fear removal scales linearly with spend and institutions. Desire can scale non-linearly through social spread."

What customers say out loud determines referral quality. Mechanism-based referrals are accurate but not socially portable. Outcome-based referrals spread.

Current State (Mechanism)	Target State (Outcome)
"They test every batch"	"It just makes feeding raw stress-free"
"You can scan the QR code"	"The uncertainty is gone"
"They publish all the lab results"	"I finally don't worry about it"

Operationalising: - Tag referral reasons in Customer.io (mechanism vs outcome language) - Monthly qualitative sampling (10-20 customers) - Track referral language trends monthly - Exit interview question for churning customers

Success = Referral language shifts from mechanism to outcome by Month 12.

---¶

Financial Model Summary¶

Launch: London-only; 300-500 customers by Month 6
Contribution ramps with volume and aggressive logistics optimization
Conservative Plan Can Still Fund: Capital plan, hiring, and contribution ramp must clear the bar under Conservative case (1.5× expansion, £450M market)
Seed Ask (Post-proof): £1.0m — £1.5m to execute Phase B (London Scale) and launch City 2

Scale Path & Strategic Optionality (The Growth Case)¶

This path reflects the "Growth Case" trajectory and corrected financial modeling based on £1,040 ARPU (with £750-850 sensitivity).

Phase A (0-6 mo): London Proof, "Complete" verification¶

Customers: 300-500 (London pilot)
ARR Run-Rate: £312k — £520k
CPD Target (Normalized): £19-21 (15% reduction from £22-24)

Key Metrics (Non-negotiable): - Box-2: >=70% - Blended CAC: £70-90 - Contribution (Normalized): £24 to £28/box - 95% Frozen-solid delivery - 3-5 vet endorsements

Seed Trigger: Hitting core metrics + confirming "Complete" nutritional status + named lab partnership + vet endorsements

Capital Ask (Seed): £1.0m — £1.5m

Phase B (7-18 mo): London Scale & Operational Efficiency¶

Customers: 7,000 — 10,000 (London focus + City 2 pilot)
ARR Run-Rate: £7.3m — £10.4m (assuming £1,040 ARPU; £5.3m-£8.5m if ARPU drifts to £750-850)
CPD Target: £14-18
Gross Contribution Target: £26-32/box

Key Initiatives: - Co-pack stepping down to £2.80-3.10/kg - Logistics Optimization: Route density, packaging optimization, hyper-local carrier pilots - Acquisition: CAC £70-85; Referrals driving 25% of new customers - AI Ops: 70-80% automation; predictive models activated - Operations Lead hired Month 7-9, executes CPD optimization (carrier coordination, packaging tests, route analysis) - Limited SKU expansion: Safety-verified treats or novel protein variant (2-3 SKUs max)

Key Proof: Cohort retention holds at scale; CPD decreases to £14-18 with density

Phase C (19-36 mo / Year 3): National Expansion & Category Leadership (Growth Case)¶

Customers: 35,000 — 45,000
ARR Run-Rate: £36.4m — £46.8m (£1,040 ARPU) or £26m-£38m (£750-850 ARPU)
CPD: £8-12
Contribution: £30-36/box (co-pack £2.60-2.90/kg)
Channel Mix: DTC 85-90%; Strategic independent retail/trade 10-15%

Veterinary Outreach: Formal KOL engagement program using safety and nutritional data; 15-25 practices endorsing

Series A Trigger: ARR £30m+, repeatable city playbook (~4 months to 1000+ subs/city), clear category leadership

Capital Ask (Series A): £10m-£20m for working capital, hubs, team, and EU test

Phase D (37-60 mo / Year 5): £70-89M ARR & Strategic Scale Readiness (Growth Case)¶

Customers: 68,000 — 86,000 (UK National Coverage + Early Fresh Market Conversion)
ARR Run-Rate: £70m — £89m (Growth Case: 2.5× UK expansion realized)
CPD: £8-12
Contribution: £30-36/box (co-pack £2.40-2.70/kg)
CAC: £60-75 blended (Strong brand awareness; referrals 35%)

Market Position: - 11-14% of £638M verified raw market (2.5× expansion achieved) - Category leadership established: "Verified raw" = Protocol Raw - 200+ published batch reports (trust moat fully realized) - 20-30 vet practices actively endorsing - Fresh market conversion validated (30-40% of Butternut Box customers discovering/converting) - Referral flywheel at 35% (sustainable acquisition efficiency)

Strategic Enhancements: - EU Pilots Complete: Ireland + Netherlands validated (5k-8k combined customers, £5-8M ARR) - Proven International Playbook: Logistics, lab partnerships, vet endorsements replicated - Format Extensions: Convenience formats (smaller bricks, pre-portioned tiles) tested - Operational Leverage: AI-native platform managing 100k+ customers with <5 ops team

UK-Only Exit Scenario: - Illustrative enterprise value (7-10× ARR): £490-890M - Acquirer profile: Nestl×, Mars, VAFO (UK category leader + tech platform) - Strategic value: Proven verification model, operational leverage, category infrastructure

EU Expansion Scenario (Series B trigger): - Series B raise: £30-50M for multi-country expansion (Year 6-7) - Target markets: Germany, France, Benelux, Nordics (4-5 countries) - Deployment: £5-8M per major market (Germany/France), £3-5M per smaller market - Path to £143M+: UK £83-104M + EU £60-81M = £143-185M combined ARR by Year 8 - EU blended ARPU: £850-950 (reflects portfolio maturity mix by Year 8) - Pan-European exit value (8-12× ARR): £1.14B - £2.22B

Potential Strategic Pathways: - Path 1: UK-only exit at £70-89M ARR (£490-890M, Year 5-7) - Path 2: UK + EU expansion to £143-185M ARR (£1.14B-£2.22B, Year 8-10) - Strategic partnership: Nestl×/Mars (category infrastructure across multiple geographies) - PE roll-up: Consolidate premium pet food under verified standard

Market Share Context: - UK: 11-14% of £638M verified raw market (Growth Case expansion) - NOT competing for share of existing £255M stagnant market - Captured share of expanded category created through verification removing trust ceiling - EU opportunity: £250-420M addressable market (1-3% raw penetration vs UK 5-6%)

Why the Growth Case is Rational¶

✓ Trust Ceiling proven by stagnation: Raw market flat/declining (Natures Menu -8%, overall +1-2%) despite favorable macro environment validates trust barrier exists
✓ Butternut Box validates TAM: £150M revenue proves raw-curious buyers exist at scale - they settled for cooking solution because verification solution didn't exist
✓ Category expansion analogous to organic food: Transparent third-party verification drove UK organic from £1.2B (2004) to £3.1B (2023) by removing trust barrier
✓ The moat is durable: 18-24 month competitive window + formulation barrier + compounding network effects create defensible category leadership
✓ Capital efficiency creates margin advantage: 10-19× operational leverage vs traditional CPG enables 42-47% contribution margins (vs 30-35% industry standard)
✓ Fresh market conversion is realistic: Butternut Box customers already committed to premium pricing, fresh feeding, species-appropriate philosophy - just need safety proof that raw provides
✓ All Life Stages unlocks puppy market: Growth & Reproduction compliance gives access to highest-LTV segment while competitors remain adult-only
✓ Vet endorsement flywheel: Growth compliance + proof data removes dual barriers (safety + authority), accelerating conversion from both fresh and premium kibble segments
✓ Conservative Plan Can Still Fund: Business model viable under 1.5× expansion (£383M market, £42-54M ARR) - Growth Case is ambition, not dependency

At Growth Case execution (2.5× expansion): - Raw market: £255M → £638M verified raw - Fresh market partially converts (30-40% of Butternut Box customers = £45-60M) - Raw-curious premium kibble unlocked (20-30% = £20-60M additional) - Protocol Raw at 11-14%: £70-89M ARR - Illustrative enterprise value (7-10× ARR): £490-890M

We're not competing for 11-14% of existing £255M raw market. We're capturing 11-14% of the £638M verified raw category we help create by removing the trust ceiling that's currently stalling growth and forcing premium buyers to settle for cooked alternatives.

This is why strategic acquirers pay premium multiples: They're buying category infrastructure (proof platform + operational leverage) that creates SaaS-like margins in food manufacturing, plus established "verified raw" category ownership with 200+ batch reports and 20-30 vet endorsements that competitors cannot replicate.

What Changes in v1.3 vs v1.2¶

Critical Market Sizing Recalibration: The Trust Ceiling Analysis¶

v1.2 used top-down estimates (£300M raw market) that were challenged by bottom-up financial analysis. v1.3 incorporates verified 2024 financial data and reframes the opportunity around the "Trust Ceiling" insight.

Why This Matters:

Accurate Market Baseline (2025): - Raw market: £255M (not £300M) - Natures Menu: £57.65M (-8% decline) - Bella & Duke: £25.94M (+13% growth) - Natural Instinct: £12.18M (0% flat) - Weighted average: +1-2% (effective stagnation) - Fresh market (Butternut Box et al): £305M - Combined raw-aligned premium: £560M

The Trust Ceiling Insight: Raw market stagnation despite favorable macro environment (pet humanization, growing premium segment) proves trust barrier exists. Growth hasn't stopped due to market saturation—it's hit a ceiling where remaining premium buyers are blocked by unresolved safety anxieties.

Butternut Box as TAM Validation: £150M revenue proves raw-curious buyers exist at scale. These customers didn't reject raw feeding—they rejected unverified raw feeding and settled for the "cooking solution" because the "verification solution" didn't exist. This £150M represents prime conversion target for verified raw.

Strategic Implications: 1. Market expansion thesis strengthened (not weakened) by stagnation data - proves trust barrier blocking growth 2. Butternut Box customers are addressable - already committed to fresh feeding, just need safety proof 3. Fresh → Verified Raw conversion case is strong - smaller behavioral leap than kibble → fresh 4. Revenue targets remain rational - Growth Case (£70-89M ARR) justified by 2.5× expansion validated through organic food analogy

v1.3 Updates: - ✓ Market sizing grounded in verified 2024 financial data (£255M raw, £305M fresh) - ✓ "Trust Ceiling" as core narrative (stagnation proves barrier, not saturation) - ✓ Butternut Box reframed as TAM validation (£150M proves raw-curious buyers exist) - ✓ Fresh market conversion case articulated (30-50% addressable over 3-5 years) - ✓ Expansion multipliers justified with Conservative/Expected/Growth scenarios - ✓ Competitive threat updated ("Verified Cooked" counter-move from Butternut Box) - ✓ Revenue targets recalibrated but Growth Case maintained (£70-89M ARR rational) - ✓ Phase D customer counts adjusted (68k-86k vs 83k-100k) to reflect realistic fresh conversion - ✓ Exit value range updated (£490-890M for Growth Case)

Conservative Plan Can Still Fund: All targets, hiring, and capital plan remain viable under Conservative Case (1.5× expansion, £383M market, £42-54M ARR). Growth Case is ambition supported by evidence, not dependency.

What Changes in v1.2 vs v1.1¶

Critical Product Clarification: All Life Stages Strategic Advantage¶

v1.1 understated a massive competitive advantage. Protocol Raw is FEDIAF Growth and Reproduction compliant, not just Adult Maintenance. This is a game-changing differentiator that deserves prominent positioning throughout the plan.

Why This Matters: - Formulation barrier: Growth & Reproduction is significantly harder to achieve than Adult Maintenance (requires higher nutrient density, precise Ca:P ratio) - Market access: Unlocks £240M premium puppy segment (30% of premium dog food market) that competitors with adult-only formulas cannot access - Lifetime value: Puppy customers never need to switch brands - highest LTV segment with natural retention through all life stages - Competitive moat: Existing raw brands would need complete reformulation (12-18 months) to respond, resetting their proof data accumulation to zero - Vet endorsement: Growth compliance removes major vet objection to raw feeding for puppies

v1.2 Updates: - ✓ Comprehensive "Why All Life Stages is a Strategic Advantage" section added - ✓ Accurate formulation details (chicken, beef tripe, pork heart, mackerel, mussel, oyster, etc.) - ✓ Listeria testing included in pathogen panel (not just Salmonella) - ✓ Puppy market opportunity quantified throughout TAM analysis - ✓ Multi-dog household opportunity highlighted - ✓ Competitive barriers enhanced with formulation challenge - ✓ All messaging updated to emphasize "all life stages" where relevant

Critical Operations Clarification: AI-Native Platform as Strategic Moat¶

v1.1 mentioned "AI-native ops" but understated the capital efficiency advantage and operational leverage this creates.

After reviewing the complete system architecture, the operations platform deserves equal prominence with the proof infrastructure as a competitive moat.

Why This Matters: - 10-19× capital efficiency: £45k/year tooling vs £470k/year traditional ops headcount at 100k customers - 42-47% contribution margins: SaaS-like margin structure in food manufacturing business (vs 30-35% industry standard) - Built for 100,000+ from Day 1: No re-architecture required at scale (database indexed, automation scales linearly, no bottlenecks) - 18-24 month build time: Even if competitor recognizes advantage, requires technical founder + complete rebuild - Operational discipline moat: Learned capabilities (exception handling, 3PL negotiations, FEFO compliance) cannot be copied from documentation

v1.2 Enhancements: - ✓ Comprehensive expansion of "AI-Native Operational Control System" section - ✓ Specific infrastructure details (SOP references, capacity metrics, scale mechanics) - ✓ Capital efficiency quantified (10-19× advantage, £425k/year savings at scale) - ✓ Margin structure advantage highlighted (42-47% vs 30-35% traditional CPG) - ✓ Scale readiness validated (4,800 orders/day capacity, sub-50ms queries at 100k customers) - ✓ Competitive timeline extended (18-24 month build + proof accumulation = 36+ month total lag)

Strategic Adjustment: Phase A Logistics Recalibration and Cost Validation¶

We have recalibrated the Phase A Cost Per Delivery (CPD) targets. This adjustment aligns the financial model with the operational reality of our London-only launch and corrects underlying cost assumptions identified during validation.

Original v1.1 Assumption: - Phase A CPD: £24-28 → £20-24. - Based on: Highly conservative national delivery assumptions (72h transit), but utilized overly aggressive operational assumptions (underestimated labor costs and initial courier fees).

v1.2 Refinement (London-Calibrated & Cost-Validated): - Materials Calibration (Savings): Rightsizing packaging for London/Spring (48h spec for 24h transit) reduces PCM mass by 37.5% (saving £2.27/box vs national spec). - Operational Cost Correction (Increase): Updating labor costs to a normalized market rate (£2.25/box) and adjusting courier fees to standard Day 1 rates (£11.86 baseline) (adding £3.31/box vs previous aggressive assumptions). - Revised Trajectory: The Normalized CPD trajectory is updated across all phases (A, B, and C) to reflect these corrections and account for the "expansion penalty" when launching new cities (Phase B).

Operational Clarification: Normalized Costs and Founder Fulfillment¶

During Phase A, fulfillment will be handled by the founder (£0 cash labor cost). The Team & Hiring section has been updated to reflect this.
To ensure sustainable unit economics, v1.2 introduces Dual Metrics Reporting. A new section (Phase A Fulfillment Strategy) defines this approach. All CPD targets, Stop-Rules, and Contribution figures in this plan utilize Normalized Costs (including £2.25/box imputed labor).
The financial model will track both Cash Basis (for runway) and Normalized Basis (for strategic planning).

Updated Targets (Normalized)¶

Phase	Starting CPD	Target CPD	M6 Contribution (Trending Toward)
Phase A	£22-24	£19-21	£26-28/box
Phase B	£19-21	£14-18	£26-32/box
Phase C	£14-18	£8-12	£30-36/box

Next 10 Working Days Checklist¶

â˜ Lock co-packer shortlist; book plant visits & sample runs. Obtain written quotes with volume step-downs and itemized COGS breakdown
â˜ Identify and approach 2-3 target third-party labs (university-affiliated preferred) for named partnership. Secure agreement including credentials/logo usage rights and lab SLA (3-day target, penalties for >4 days)
â˜ Secure pre-negotiated hyper-local carrier pilot terms from 2-3 carriers for Phase B
â˜ Order packaging v1 (QR-ready); set up batch results page template with hash-based file sealing and public changelog
â˜ Conduct 48-hour frozen stress tests (Woolcool + gel ice; 1:4 ratio). Document results
â˜ Brief lab; arrange sample collection for full nutrient panel
â˜ Obtain written CPD quotes at 100 and 500 drops/week from 2-3 frozen 3PLs with explicit carrier SLAs (max depot dwell, cold-chain handoffs, probe placement, penalties)
â˜ Build smoke-test landers testing transparency messaging variants; launch £1.5-2.5k test budget
✓ Price bands locked: 8kg (£89), 12kg (£109), 16kg (£129) inc-VAT - ready for PDP build
â˜ Map retention (Day 0/3/7/14 messages) + subscription cadence guardrails logic
â˜ Analytics: CAC/LTV/Payback dashboard + daily cohort table + lab turnaround tracking
â˜ Draft seed storyline slides incorporating category expansion thesis from research + Conservative Plan Can Still Fund constraint
â˜ Write 1-page incident & recall playbook (pathogen fail, temperature excursion, portal data error): customer messaging, refund rules, regulator notification, social media handling
â˜ Draft "Vet Validation Pack" outline (1-page safety summary + full lab reports + nutritional panel) for Month 4 launch
â˜ Begin building AI-native ops stack (Make workflows, lab PDF parser with hash sealing, courier API integration)
â˜ Map density creation levers: Identify target micro-zones for hard delivery windows, draft waitlist gating postcode list, design referral boost mechanics (£20 for same-postcode), identify 2-3 dog walking groups or vet practices for early adopter cluster pilots

Protocol Raw " Business Plan v1.5 (Final Execution-Ready Edition)
Last updated: November 21, 2025

Appendix: Competitive Precedent Analysis¶

Manufacturing Investment Decisions: Empirical Validation¶

The manufacturing decision framework in this plan is grounded in empirical analysis of how successful UK premium pet food companies actually made this decision. Both Bella & Duke and Butternut Box provide detailed financial history through Companies House filings.

Bella & Duke Manufacturing Timeline (Companies House Data)¶

Financial Year	Revenue	Gross Margin	Operating Margin	Key Events
FY2021	£11.2m	31.3%	-17.8%	Pre-manufacturing baseline
FY2022	£19.3m	44.3%	-13.5%	£4m manufacturing capex, headcount 68→119
FY2023	£22.9m	46.6%	-2.0%	EBITDA positive (Year 1 post-capex)
FY2024	£25.9m	51.6%	-1.6%	EBITDA positive, continued improvement
FY2025	£27.7m	54.0%	+0.7%	Operating profit achieved

Key Insights: - Decision made at ~£11m revenue (FY2021 year-end) - Capex: ~£4m (Protocol Raw Phase C models £1.25-2.0M, right-sized for ~30k customers with expansion optionality) - Immediate margin improvement: +13 points (31.3% → 44.3%) - Cumulative margin improvement: +22.7 points over 4 years - EBITDA positive within 1 year of facility completion - Operating profit achieved Year 3 post-investment

Strategic Quote (FY2022 Report): "Bringing our manufacturing 'in house', significantly improving gross margins."

Bella & Duke Current Performance (FY2025/26 Operational Data)¶

Metric	Value	Implication
Subscription growth	20%+ YoY, accelerating	Market expanding, not saturated
Raw-first-timers	60%+ of new customers	Category expansion validated
Retention signal	86% "never go back"	Strong product-market fit
Meals/month	3.7 million	~30k active customers
EU expansion	NL + Belgium launched	"Exceeded expectations"
2030 target	"Double the size of the business"	Expects category to support growth

Strategic Quote (January 2026): "Customers are engaging deeply with our message of healthier, minimally processed, natural nutrition for pets."

Butternut Box Manufacturing Timeline (Companies House Data)¶

Financial Year	Revenue	Gross Margin	Operating Margin	Key Events
FY2019	~£7-8m	21.6%	Loss	Pre-manufacturing, 200% growth
FY2020	£23.2m	31.7%	-26.2%	"Invested funds to construct production facility in Bassetlaw"
FY2021	£34.9m	35.4%	-44.2%	Facility operational Q1, Series D £40m
FY2022	£69.5m	37.9%	-34.3%	Scaling, EU expansion
FY2023	£126.7m	47.5%	-7.5%	Series E (L Catterton + GA), Poland acquisition
FY2024	£149.7m	~47-48%	~breakeven	"Pushing towards statutory profitability in 2025"

Key Insights: - Decision made at ~£23m revenue (FY2020) - Facility: 200,000 sq ft integrated production & fulfilment - Margin improvement: 21.6% → 47.5% (+25.9 points total journey) - Operating loss improved from -44.2% to -7.5% over 2 years post-facility - Series D (£40m) partially funded facility; Series E followed proven execution

Strategic Quote (FY2020 Report): "The Company has invested funds to construct a production and fulfilment facility in Bassetlaw, to support projected growth."

Strategic Quote (FY2021 Report): "The new facility will enable the group to deliver consistent growth across the three geographies and underpin further expansion in 2022 and beyond."

Manufacturing Decision Pattern: What The Data Shows¶

Both competitors demonstrate the same pattern:

Decide at £10-25M revenue (before scale certainty)
Fund with growth capital (Series A/B equivalent)
Accept short-term margin compression (facility launch year)
Deliver 10-15 point margin improvement over 2-3 years
Reach profitability once manufacturing optimised

Protocol Raw's manufacturing decision framework (Month 16-17, £7-10M ARR, conviction bet based on Phase B trajectory) aligns with this market-validated playbook.

Category Expansion Validation¶

The most significant finding from this analysis is not about manufacturing—it's about demand:

Bella & Duke's 60%+ raw-first-timer conversion rate proves: - Raw demand is elastic to positioning - The "Trust Ceiling" is perceptual, not preferential
- Category expansion is occurring now, not hypothetically - A large cohort of "philosophically aligned but previously hesitant" customers exists

This validates Protocol Raw's TAM thesis while clarifying our differentiation: - B&D proves step one: Raw demand is mainstream when perception shifts - Protocol Raw delivers step two: Permanent trust infrastructure vs. improved messaging

We are not competing for the same customers. B&D wins narrative-responsive buyers; Protocol Raw wins evidence-responsive buyers. Both expand the category.

Version History¶

v2.0 (January 26, 2026) - Manufacturing Cost Model Correction & Technical Bandwidth Assessment¶

Changes: - ✅ Added Month 12-14: Technical Bandwidth Assessment — New Phase B decision gate addressing founder capacity for manufacturing domain extension - ✅ Decision hierarchy defined: Default founder-led → fractional help (£5-15k) → contract engineer (£60-80k) if needed - ✅ Architectural ownership protected: Any external help works below the architecture line; founder retains authority over schema, release logic, and invariants - ✅ Corrected Option B capex: £3-5M → £1.25-2.0M (right-sized for Phase C ~30k customers, not B&D's 34k sq ft upper-bound) - ✅ Added Option B fixed opex: £400-600k/year explicitly stated (facility, utilities, 6-8 production staff, QA, maintenance, insurance) - ✅ Updated Series A sizing for Option B: £15-20M → £12-17M (reflects corrected capex + first-year opex) - ✅ Added payback validation: £3.5-3.9M annual contribution uplift vs £400-600k opex + £1.25-2.0M capex = 12-18 month payback - ✅ Added cost basis note: Estimates benchmarked against UK industry data, detailed facility planning to be completed at Month 16-17 with specialist validation - ✅ Added Appendix: Option B Manufacturing Cost Methodology — Full breakdown of throughput requirements, facility specification, cost model, benchmark context, and expansion path - ✅ Reframed manufacturing strategy: "Phased, not monolithic" — Phase C facility right-sized for ~30k customers with expansion designed in, not pre-funded - ✅ Updated Team & Hiring section: - Added Technical Bandwidth Assessment reference in Phase B hiring timeline - Added manufacturing staffing section for Option B (Production Manager + 6-8 FTE production staff) - Added facility ramp timeline (Month 18-24) - Updated COO Evaluation to account for Option A vs Option B paths - Expanded Contract Support table with specific roles, timing, and costs - ✅ Fixed encoding artifacts: Removed all corrupted characters throughout document

Rationale: Original Option B capex (£3-5M) was based on Bella & Duke's 34,000 sq ft multi-SKU facility—an upper-bound reference inappropriate for Protocol Raw's Phase C scale. Corrected figures (£1.25-2.0M capex, £400-600k/year opex) reflect an 8,000-15,000 sq ft facility sized for ~30k customers with clear expansion path at Phase D. The Technical Bandwidth Assessment addresses a real risk—founder as single point of failure for system extension—while protecting the 18-24 month technical moat by ensuring any external help preserves architectural coherence. Team & Hiring updates ensure the plan accounts for manufacturing staffing if Option B is chosen. These changes strengthen investor credibility by demonstrating realistic cost modelling and governance discipline.

v1.9 (January 24, 2026) - Market Thesis Sharpening & Systems-First Rewrite¶

Market Thesis Changes: - ✅ Reframed "Trust Ceiling" as "Clinical Safety Barrier": The #1 reason UK dog owners don't feed raw is specific fear of bacterial pathogens (Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria), actively reinforced by NHS guidance, BVA, and most practising vets. This isn't vague "trust"—it's the medical establishment saying "don't do this." - ✅ Sharpened problem statement: Replaced "safety anxieties" with specific barrier hierarchy: (1) Bacterial fear, (2) Vet/NHS guidance against raw, (3) Cost, (4) Nutritional anxiety, (5) Social norms - ✅ Reframed vet strategy from "endorsement" to "institutional flip": Vets are currently active blockers, not neutral observers. Each endorsement flips a blocker to an advocate. Protocol Raw provides the clinical evidence vets need to change their recommendation. - ✅ Added "Responsible = Verified" reframe: Kibble is seen as "responsible" because vets recommend it. Protocol Raw redefines responsible as "verified safe"—evidence-based, not trust-based. - ✅ Made "proof" more clinically specific: "Every batch independently tested for Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli. Results published before release. Scan the QR code—see for yourself."

Systems-First Company Rewrite: - ✅ Replaced "AI-Native Ops & Automation Roadmap" with "Systems-First Company: The Operational Moat": This isn't a roadmap—24 production-ready SOPs (20,640 lines) and Operations Portal v3.6 (2,068 lines) are already built. Total technical documentation: 45,175 lines pre-launch. - ✅ Emphasized founder-as-systems-architect as the moat: The founder designed and built every system. This is not delegable. The technical understanding runs to the database index level—and stays with the founder permanently. - ✅ Corrected Operations Lead role: Non-technical execution role. Owns partner relationships, exception handling, compliance documentation. Does NOT own systems architecture, Make.com development, or technical decisions. - ✅ Removed "50-60% automation in Phase A" framing: Systems are already production-ready for 100k+ customers. Phase A is operational refinement, not building. - ✅ Added SOP inventory table: Clear articulation of what's been built across Order Flow, Batch & QA, Inventory, Cold Chain, Cost Tracking, Customer Ops, Monitoring, Lifecycle, and Subscription systems. - ✅ Corrected moat statement: "The tech IS hard to replicate—in this category." Pet food founders are marketing-first, not systems-first. The founder can ship a fix in an afternoon; competitors would need a quarterly roadmap.

Competitive Threat Corrections: - ✅ Removed "Verified Cooked" as critical threat: Cooking already addresses bacterial fear—that IS Butternut's verification. Adding lab testing would be messaging redundancy. Their strategic response is nutritional, not safety. - ✅ Elevated B&D verification as primary threat: The real risk is Bella & Duke launching verification, but constrained by: (1) no tech DNA, (2) 20+ SKUs makes batch-level testing operationally prohibitive, (3) working capital explodes when nothing ships unverified, (4) entire fulfillment process requires redesign. - ✅ Added "copy language validates positioning" insight: If B&D copies verification language without substance, customers will compare. "Where's the QR code?" We can answer; they can't. - ✅ Strengthened single-SKU as verification enabler: Single-SKU isn't a limitation—it's what makes genuine batch-level verification economically sustainable. Multi-SKU competitors face 3-5× working capital increase to match.

Rationale: The previous section seriously understated what's been built and incorrectly described the Operations Lead as owning technical systems. The corrected version accurately reflects: 1. Protocol Raw is a systems-first company, not a dog food company with technology 2. 24 production-ready SOPs exist pre-launch—this is the moat, not the tech stack 3. Founder permanently owns systems architecture—diluting this destroys the competitive advantage 4. Operations Lead is non-technical, focused on partner relationships and execution

Core positioning confirmed: "Proof, not promises" becomes stronger with the sharpened thesis. Competitors say "trust us, it's safe." Protocol Raw says "here's the lab report—verify yourself." This directly answers the #1 clinical fear with the evidence format the medical establishment would recognize.

v1.8 (January 24, 2026) - Market Validation & Competitive Precedent Update¶

Changes: - ✅ Rewrote Trust Ceiling section: Acknowledged Bella & Duke's 20%+ growth and 60%+ raw-first-timer conversion as validation of demand elasticity - ✅ Reframed competitive positioning: B&D positioned as "partner in category expansion" rather than ceiling-bound competitor - ✅ Added Strategic Risks section: Core falsification test is now "verification unlocks meaningfully different cohort than brand-led raw" - ✅ Added falsification conditions: Four specific conditions that would indicate thesis failure (brand over proof as driver, weak vet uptake, retention at category norms, low proof portal engagement) - ✅ Added Competitive Precedent appendix: Complete Companies House financial data for Bella & Duke (FY2021-25) and Butternut Box (FY2019-24), with manufacturing decision timeline analysis - ✅ Updated Competitive Threat Assessment: B&D threat reframed with coexistence rationale; added comparison table (reframing vs. verification) - ✅ Added key positioning statement: "Recent market performance confirms that raw feeding demand is philosophically mainstream but perceptually constrained; Protocol Raw is designed to remove that constraint permanently through verification rather than narrative."

Rationale: The original plan treated market expansion as hypothetical and positioned competitors as constrained. Bella & Duke's FY2025 performance (20%+ growth, 60%+ raw-first-timers, 86% retention signal) demonstrates that step one—proving raw demand exists at scale—has already been achieved by competitors. Protocol Raw's thesis is now step two: permanent trust infrastructure vs. improved messaging. This update makes the plan more credible by building on proven market dynamics rather than re-arguing them.

Key insight added: The divergence between traditional raw brands (stagnating) and B&D (growing 20%+) proves that raw adoption is responsive to positioning. Protocol Raw offers a structurally different solution (verification vs. reframing) that addresses a different customer segment (evidence-responsive vs. narrative-responsive). Both can succeed because the underlying demand pool is larger than either can serve alone.

v1.7 (January 23, 2026) - Manufacturing Decision Framework Correction¶

Changes: - ✅ Corrected manufacturing decision timing: Decision is made at Month 16-17 (pre-Series A raise), not based on £30-40M ARR data that won't exist until post-Series A deployment - ✅ Added competitive precedent: Bella & Duke (£11-19M revenue, FY2021-22) and Butternut Box (£10-20M revenue, 2020-21) both made manufacturing decisions at similar revenue stage to Protocol Raw's Series A - ✅ Reframed as conviction bet: Manufacturing decision is based on Phase B trajectory data and strategic intent (Path 1 vs Path 2), not proof of scale - ✅ Clarified decision inputs: Specific thresholds for Box-2 retention (≥70%), City 2 replication, COGS trajectory, CAC efficiency (£70-90), and referral rate (trending to 25%) - ✅ Added high-confidence gate: "Option B is only chosen if all Phase B thresholds are met; this is a high-confidence, not mixed-signal, decision" - ✅ Updated Co-packer Strategy: Added explicit COGS trajectory targets (£3.20-3.60/kg → £2.80-3.10/kg → £2.40-2.70/kg) and transition planning for Option B - ✅ Clarified Series A sizing: Option A = £10-15M, Option B = £12-17M (decision determines raise size; updated from £15-20M in v2.0) - ✅ Added irreversibility principle: "The manufacturing decision is not revisited annually" - ✅ Removed circular logic: Previous framework said "if ARR £30-40M trending to £50M+" but that data doesn't exist at Series A raise time

Rationale: The previous framework created an impossible decision sequence—requiring ARR data that only exists after Series A is deployed to decide the size of the Series A raise. Competitive analysis of Bella & Duke (Companies House FY2022) and Butternut Box (Rudie's Kitchen timeline) confirms that successful competitors made manufacturing decisions at £10-20M revenue based on trajectory conviction, not proven scale. The revised framework aligns Protocol Raw's approach with market-validated timing while maintaining clear decision criteria. This correction makes the plan more truthful, more investor-realistic, and more internally consistent.

v1.6 (November 21, 2025) - Team Structure & Founder Systems Architecture Clarification¶

Changes: - ✅ Corrected team structure to reflect founder as permanent systems architect (18-24 month technical moat) - ✅ Operations Lead role redefined: First post-seed hire (Month 7-9) focused on execution within founder-architected systems, NOT system ownership - ✅ Operations Lead profile updated: Founder's partner, currently Agent Onboarding Supervisor at RIA Money Transfers; meticulous generalist with compliance-heavy operations background - ✅ Operations Lead compensation: £50k + 0.5% equity (4-year vest, 1-year cliff) - ✅ Jamie (Commercial Advisor) role clarified: 2-year advisory commitment (0.75-1.0% equity), handles 3PL/co-packer relationships, no full-time conversion - ✅ COO hiring path defined: Month 24-30 evaluation (promote Operations Lead OR hire experienced food/frozen COO) - ✅ Founder's permanent role emphasized: Systems architecture authority never delegated—this is the core AI-native operations moat - ✅ Removed "Operations & Data Lead" title: Replaced with "Operations Lead" (execution generalist, not technical leadership) - ✅ Hiring sequence clarified: Phase A (Founder + Jamie), Phase B (add Operations Lead M7-9, Marketing Lead M12), Phase C (CMO M20, Supply Chain Director M22, Head of CS M24) - ✅ Treats verification scope added: Clarified that batch testing applies to both meals and treats - ✅ Claims hygiene updated: "zero released pathogen failures to date" → "Zero released pathogen failures to date"

Rationale: Original v1.5 text suggested Operations Lead would "own Make/API reliability" and system architecture, which dilutes the founder's core technical moat. Corrected structure makes clear that founder retains systems architecture permanently (database design, automation logic, API integrations), while Operations Lead handles day-to-day execution (monitoring, coordination, compliance, customer operations). This protects the 18-24 month competitive lag and signals to investors that the technical depth is founder-owned, not delegable.

Operations Lead profile addition: Including background (RIA Money Transfers supervisor, rapid promotion, compliance-heavy environment, Masters in Social Work from Spain, moved to London early 20s) provides credible narrative for first hire and demonstrates capability via track record rather than just "founder's partner" relationship.

v1.5 (November 21, 2025) - Verified Raw Treats Product Expansion Strategy¶

Changes: - ✓ Added comprehensive "Product Expansion Strategy: Verified Raw Treats" section (inserted after Retention System, before AI-Native Ops) - ✓ Launch timing rationalized: Month 9-11 (Early Phase B) after Phase A validation, seed close, and 3PL transition stabilization - ✓ Launch gates defined: Phase A complete (300-500 customers, Box-2 ≥70%), seed closed, 3PL stable, CPD on track, proof portal humming - ✓ Unit economics detailed: £3.20-£4.00 contribution per treat unit, £0.80-£1.20 net order lift at 20-30% attach rate - ✓ ARPU impact quantified: +£70-£120 annually (6-10% lift from £1,180 to £1,250-£1,300) - ✓ Non-negotiable verification maintained: Same 3-pathogen micro testing (Salmonella, Listeria, Enterobacteriaceae), published COAs, batch-linked QR codes on treat pouches - ✓ Product specifications: Start with 1 SKU (lamb lung, 80g @ £6.99), expand to 2-3 max only if metrics hit (≥20% attach, ≥£0.80 contribution) - ✓ Operational integration specified: Pick/pack SOP amendments (30-45s addition), FEFO inventory management, ambient storage, lot-level traceability - ✓ Supplier requirements defined: UK Cat-3 origin, private-label freeze-drying, per-lot COA provision with publication rights (Jamie-led sourcing, Month 9) - ✓ Technology workflows: Shopify add-on flow, Make.com automation scenarios (order ingestion, FEFO allocation, QR generation), Metabase dashboard additions - ✓ Success metrics and stop-rules: 20-30% attach target, ≥£0.80 incremental contribution, <15% attach after 8 weeks triggers pause/pivot - ✓ Investor narrative integrated: Demonstrates operational leverage, disciplined expansion, moat extension through "only verified treats" positioning - ✓ Brand positioning reinforced: "The only freeze-dried treats with published batch testing" extends competitive moat to treat category - ✓ Phase integration summary: Phase A (not launched), Phase B (launch M9-11, optimize M12-18), Phase C (BAU, 3 SKUs max) - ✓ Updated Retention System section: Added reference to comprehensive treats strategy section

Rationale: Treats represent a high-ROI, brand-consistent expansion opportunity that lifts ARPU 6-10% with minimal operational complexity and zero CPD impact. Launching in Month 9-11 (after Phase A validation, seed close, and 3PL transition) demonstrates disciplined execution while strengthening unit economics before Phase B CAC scaling. Maintaining verification on all treats extends the competitive moat (18-24 month proof accumulation lag) and reinforces "systematic, not emotional" brand positioning. This proves operational leverage thesis (add revenue without proportional cost) and validates "AI-native ops" capability before Series A.

Protocol Raw — Business Plan v1.4 (Final Execution-Ready Edition)
Last updated: November 20, 2025

Version History¶

v1.4 (November 20, 2025) - EU ARPU Math Correction & Pricing Finalization¶

Changes: - Corrected EU Year 8 projections to align with £1,040 target ARPU and portfolio maturity dynamics - EU ARR updated: £31-46M → £60-81M (was mathematically inconsistent with 70-100k customers) - EU Blended ARPU: £850-950 explicitly stated (reflects mature markets like Benelux/Germany at £950-1,040 and scaling markets like France/Nordics at £850-950) - Market-by-market breakdown added with specific customer counts, ARPU, and ARR for Germany, France, Benelux, Nordics - Combined UK + EU ARR updated: £114-150M → £143-185M (harmonized throughout) - Pan-European exit value updated: £912M-£1.8B → £1.14B-£2.22B (8-12× ARR) - Manufacturing scenarios updated with proportionally higher exit values reflecting corrected ARR - Added explanatory note: Why EU ARPU is 82-91% of UK by Year 8 (portfolio maturity mix, with convergence to £950-1,040 by Year 10) - Safety phrasing clarified: "zero released pathogen failures to date" → "Zero released pathogen failures" (reflects test-and-release gating policy) - VAT clarification added: All ARPU/ARR figures explicitly noted as ex-VAT throughout plan - Pricing finalized: Locked at top of band (8kg £89, 12kg £109, 16kg £129 inc-VAT) for Phase A launch readiness. Delivers £90.83 ex-VAT per 12kg box, supporting £1,180 ARPU at 4-week frequency (13.5% above £1,040 target).

Rationale: Original v1.3 EU projections implied £310-657 ARPU (30-70% below target) with no explanation. This created mathematical inconsistency that would be immediately spotted by investors. Corrected figures reflect realistic market-by-market dynamics while maintaining internal consistency with £1,040 ARPU target used throughout plan.

v1.3 (November 17, 2025) - Market Sizing Recalibration¶

Trust Ceiling analysis and category expansion framework
Updated TAM calculations with Conservative Plan Can Still Fund constraint
Refined competitive moat articulation (36-42 month lag)

v1.2 (November 16, 2025) - Operational Reality Check¶

Phase A fulfillment strategy (founder-led)
Dual metrics reporting (Cash vs Normalized CPD)
Updated logistics trajectory with explicit stop-rules

Appendix: Option B Manufacturing Cost Methodology¶

Purpose: Document the basis for Option B (in-house manufacturing) cost estimates
Status: Strategic planning estimates; detailed validation to be completed Month 16-17
Last Updated: January 2026

Manufacturing Strategy Overview¶

Core Principle: Protocol Raw's manufacturing strategy is phased, not monolithic. Facilities are sized to the customer base they serve, with expansion designed in rather than pre-funded.

Phase C represents an intentional intermediate state—right-sized for ~30,000 customers, with clear expansion triggers and funding path for Phase D scale-up.

Phase C Throughput Requirements¶

The facility is sized based on what it must produce, not abstract square footage targets.

Metric	Phase C Target
Customers	~30,000
Boxes per year	~390,000
Kg per year	~195-210 tonnes
Production cadence	System-controlled, predictable
Shifts	Single shift, 5 days/week initially
SKUs	3-5 (main product sizes + treats; cats as optionality)

A Phase C facility is sized to reliably produce this throughput with headroom, not to serve the full long-term addressable market.

Phase C Facility Specification¶

Target: 8,000-15,000 sq ft, single-shift, expansion-capable shell

This is materially smaller than Bella & Duke's 34,000 sq ft facility because:

Phase C ≠ end state — B&D's facility serves £25M+ revenue and 134 employees today. Protocol Raw's Phase C facility serves ~30k customers; expansion comes at Phase D.
Single shift initially — Capacity doubles by adding second shift before requiring facility expansion.
Expansion-capable shell — Site selection prioritises facilities with adjacent expansion space or modular cold storage options.

Location: Midlands or North England (lower lease rates, good logistics access, available food-grade industrial stock).

Phase C Cost Model (~30,000 Customers)¶

One-Time Capex: £1.25-2.0M

Category	Estimate	Notes
Processing & packing equipment	£500-800k	Grinding, mixing, portioning, packing line
Cold storage (on-site)	£300-500k	Blast freezer + holding capacity
Fit-out & utilities	£250-400k	Food-grade flooring, drainage, 3-phase power
QA & monitoring systems	£50-100k	Lab equipment, temperature monitoring
Contingency	£150-200k	Explicit buffer for unknowns
Total Capex	£1.25-2.0M

Annual Fixed Opex: £400-600k/year (Steady State)

Category	Estimate	Notes
Facility lease + rates	£60-100k	8-15k sq ft @ £8-12/sq ft, Midlands/North
Utilities (cold + power)	£40-70k	Cold storage is energy-intensive
Production staff	£180-260k	6-8 FTE including shift cover
QA / food safety	£50-70k	1-1.5 FTE dedicated
Maintenance & engineering	£40-60k	Fractional / contract
Insurance & compliance	£20-30k	Food manufacturing specific
Total Annual Opex	£400-600k

Payback Validation¶

Metric	Value
Contribution uplift (Option B vs A)	£9-10/box
Boxes per year (30k customers)	~390,000
Annual contribution gain	£3.5-3.9M
Option B fixed opex	£400-600k/year
Option B capex	£1.25-2.0M
Payback period	12-18 months

Benchmark Context¶

Bella & Duke (Upper Bound Reference): - 34,000 sq ft manufacturing and distribution centre - ~£4M total investment including £2M cold store - 134 employees at £25.9M revenue (March 2024) - Serves national distribution from single site - Multi-SKU product range (meals + treats + cat food)

Why Protocol Raw Phase C is smaller: - Phase C serves ~30k customers vs B&D's current scale - Single shift vs multi-shift operation - Phased geographic expansion vs national from Day 1 - Expansion funded at Phase D, not pre-built

Butternut Box (Trajectory Reference): - Rudie's Kitchen opened March 2021 (integrated manufacturing + fulfilment) - 8M+ meals annually at maturity - Second facility (Poland, 40,000 sq meters) funded by £280M raise - Demonstrates phased facility expansion at scale

Expansion Path (Phase D / Series B)¶

Expansion Triggers: - Customer base approaching 50,000+ - Single shift at >80% utilisation - SKU expansion requiring dedicated lines (e.g., cat food) - EU volume justifying regional production

Expansion Options: 1. Add second shift — Doubles throughput, minimal capex (~£50-100k for additional staff facilities) 2. Expand existing facility — If adjacent space available, add cold storage and production capacity 3. Second UK site — Regional split (North/South) to reduce delivery distances 4. EU facility — Dedicated production for continental Europe (Series B funded, £3-5M)

Funding: Phase D expansion is funded from Series B (£30-50M) if Path 2 (pan-European) is chosen. No pre-commitment required at Series A.

What Remains to be Validated (Month 16-17)¶

Prior to Series A, the following will be completed with specialist input:

Throughput model validation — Confirm production capacity vs customer growth trajectory
Facility specification — Exact sq ft, layout, expansion optionality
Equipment quotes — Detailed specifications and supplier pricing
Site shortlist — 2-3 candidate locations with lease terms
Staffing model — Shift patterns, FTE requirements, local labour market
Regulatory timeline — DEFRA licensing, food safety certifications

Validation approach: - Food manufacturing consultant (facility sizing, equipment spec, staffing): £5-15k - Commercial property advisor (site identification, lease terms): £0-5k - Equipment suppliers (detailed quotes): Free

Output: Bottom-up cost model validated against these top-down estimates, ready for Series A investor scrutiny.

This appendix will be updated with validated figures at Month 16-17.

Appendix: Database Schema for Health Outcomes (NEW in v2.1)¶

-- Health baseline captured at signup
CREATE TABLE customer_health_baseline (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
  customer_id UUID REFERENCES customers(id) NOT NULL,
  dog_id UUID REFERENCES dogs(id) NOT NULL,

  -- Prior diet
  prior_diet_brand TEXT,
  prior_diet_type TEXT CHECK (prior_diet_type IN ('kibble', 'fresh_cooked', 'raw', 'mixed', 'homemade')),
  prior_diet_duration_months INTEGER,

  -- Baseline health markers
  stool_consistency INTEGER CHECK (stool_consistency BETWEEN 1 AND 7),
  stool_frequency_daily DECIMAL(3,1),
  flatulence_level INTEGER CHECK (flatulence_level BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  coat_condition INTEGER CHECK (coat_condition BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  shedding_level INTEGER CHECK (shedding_level BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  skin_issues_present BOOLEAN,
  skin_issues_description TEXT,
  energy_level INTEGER CHECK (energy_level BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  current_weight_kg DECIMAL(4,1),
  weight_trend TEXT CHECK (weight_trend IN ('losing', 'stable', 'gaining')),
  allergy_symptoms_present BOOLEAN,
  allergy_symptoms_description TEXT,
  vet_visits_last_6_months INTEGER,
  medications_current TEXT[],
  dental_condition INTEGER CHECK (dental_condition BETWEEN 1 AND 5),

  -- Motivation
  switch_reason TEXT[],
  switch_reason_other TEXT,

  -- Metadata
  captured_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW(),
  first_delivery_date DATE,

  CONSTRAINT one_baseline_per_dog UNIQUE (dog_id)
);

-- Longitudinal health tracking
CREATE TABLE customer_health_checkpoints (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
  customer_id UUID REFERENCES customers(id) NOT NULL,
  dog_id UUID REFERENCES dogs(id) NOT NULL,

  checkpoint_type TEXT NOT NULL CHECK (checkpoint_type IN ('box_2', 'month_3', 'month_6', 'month_12', 'annual')),
  checkpoint_date DATE NOT NULL,
  days_on_protocol_raw INTEGER NOT NULL,

  -- Health markers (same as baseline)
  stool_consistency INTEGER CHECK (stool_consistency BETWEEN 1 AND 7),
  stool_frequency_daily DECIMAL(3,1),
  flatulence_level INTEGER CHECK (flatulence_level BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  coat_condition INTEGER CHECK (coat_condition BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  shedding_level INTEGER CHECK (shedding_level BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  skin_issues_present BOOLEAN,
  skin_issues_description TEXT,
  energy_level INTEGER CHECK (energy_level BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
  current_weight_kg DECIMAL(4,1),
  weight_trend TEXT CHECK (weight_trend IN ('losing', 'stable', 'gaining')),
  allergy_symptoms_present BOOLEAN,
  allergy_symptoms_description TEXT,
  vet_visits_since_last INTEGER,
  medications_current TEXT[],
  dental_condition INTEGER CHECK (dental_condition BETWEEN 1 AND 5),

  -- Transition-specific (Box 2 only)
  transition_symptoms TEXT[],
  transition_concerns TEXT,

  -- Satisfaction
  overall_satisfaction INTEGER CHECK (overall_satisfaction BETWEEN 1 AND 10),
  nps_score INTEGER CHECK (nps_score BETWEEN 0 AND 10),
  would_recommend BOOLEAN,

  -- Open feedback
  notable_changes TEXT,
  concerns TEXT,

  captured_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW(),

  CONSTRAINT unique_checkpoint UNIQUE (dog_id, checkpoint_type, checkpoint_date)
);

-- Indexes
CREATE INDEX idx_health_baseline_prior_diet ON customer_health_baseline(prior_diet_type);
CREATE INDEX idx_health_checkpoints_type ON customer_health_checkpoints(checkpoint_type);
CREATE INDEX idx_health_checkpoints_days ON customer_health_checkpoints(days_on_protocol_raw);

Action Items Summary (v2.1 Additions)¶

Immediate (Settlement Period)¶

[ ] Design health outcomes data model (database schema)
[ ] Design baseline questionnaire content and flow
[ ] Create Customer.io integration plan for health data collection
[ ] Identify 2-3 vet academic targets with approach strategy
[ ] Update Homepage copy per messaging refinements
[ ] Update Brand Voice Guidelines with new principles
[ ] Create "Worry Goes Away" audit checklist for all touchpoints

Pre-Launch¶

[ ] Implement health questionnaire in Supabase (run migration)
[ ] Build baseline capture flow in signup journey
[ ] Configure Customer.io triggers for checkpoint questionnaires
[ ] Begin vet academic outreach
[ ] Audit all customer-facing copy against "worry goes away" test

Post-Launch (Phase A)¶

[ ] Monthly review of outcomes data accumulation
[ ] Quarterly review of institutional relationship status
[ ] Monthly customer language sampling (advocacy metric)
[ ] Track referral language in Customer.io

Summary: What Changes in v2.2¶

Area	v2.0 Status	v2.1 Addition (Now in v2.2)
Strategic Risks	8 risks identified	+4 new risks: Narrative theft, safety pigeonhole, second moat neglect, "impressive but not for me"
Outcomes Infrastructure	Not present	Full specification: baseline questionnaire, longitudinal tracking, database schema, KPIs
Institutional Strategy	Vet endorsements mentioned	Formal advisor/partner/validator model with Phase A targets
Success Metrics	Unit economics focus	+Advocacy language tracking, +health data completeness, +institutional progress
Phase A Scope	Visible validation only	+Quiet infrastructure workstream (outcomes data, institutional groundwork)
Brand Principles	"Proof, not promises"	+"We lead with the feeling. We back it with the system."
Messaging Guidance	Mechanism-focused	Outcome-first emphasis, "worry goes away" release gate
Budget Protection	Not present	Ring-fenced £2-5k/month research/insights allocation
Two Crowns Framework	Not present	Full Phase A → Phase B crown sequencing with curiosity signal rules

Document Status: ✅ FINAL - INVESTOR-READY

Last updated: February 3, 2026
Owner: Founder
Next Review: Month 3 (post-launch metrics), Month 6 (pre-seed raise), Month 18 (pre-Series A)

Protocol Raw - Business Plan v2.3¶

Version History¶

v2.3 (February 3, 2026) — Metrics Reconciliation¶

v2.2 (January 27, 2026) — Comprehensive Merge¶

v2.1 (January 2026) — Strategic Advisor Refinements¶

v2.0 (January 26, 2026) - Manufacturing Cost Model Correction & Technical Bandwidth Assessment¶

Executive Summary¶

The Market Creation Opportunity¶

Three Overlapping Moats Create 36-42 Month Competitive Lag¶

The Two Crowns Framework (NEW in v2.1)¶

The Path to £100M+ ARR¶

Why Premium Multiples (8-12× ARR for Pan-European)¶

Two Rational Exit Paths¶

Investment Highlights¶

The Ask¶

One-Line¶

Problem & Wedge¶

Problem & Wedge¶

The Clinical Safety Barrier Blocking Raw Feeding Growth¶

The Wedge: Verification Removes the Clinical Safety Barrier¶

The "Responsible = Verified" Reframe¶

Category Expansion Thesis¶

Product (What We Sell)¶

Core Formulation¶

SKUs (Simple and Deliberate)¶

Why "All Life Stages" is a Strategic Advantage¶

The Competitive Reality¶

Our Single-Formula Approach¶

Strategic Benefits¶

Market Size Implications¶

Competitive Moat Enhancement¶

Why This Matters for Seed Raise¶

The Proof Stack (Trust System)¶

Safety Hero Message (addresses 45% of consumer concerns)¶

Nutrition Credibility Layer (removes 30% barrier)¶

Process¶

Customer Outcomes¶

Temperature Audits (Phased)¶

Competitive Moat (Why 36-42 Month Lead)¶

Why The Moats Overlap and Compound¶

1. Industry Structural Barriers (PRIMARY MOAT)¶

Why Most Competitors Won't Respond¶

Industry Reality: Pet Food is Not Tech-Forward¶

2. Category Leadership & Proof Data Accumulation (Compounding Moat)¶

The Proof Data Flywheel¶

Why Proof Data Creates an Unbridgeable Moat¶

Proof Data Cannot Be Accelerated¶

3. AI-Native Operational Control System (Execution Moat)¶

What We've Built: Enterprise-Grade Operations Platform¶

Capital Efficiency: The Hidden Moat¶

Scale Mechanics: Built for 100,000+ From Day 1¶

Why This Creates a Structural Advantage¶

The Operational Discipline Moat (Activates at Scale)¶

4. Network Effects & Referral Economics (Defensive Moat)¶

The Vet Strategy: Flipping Blockers to Advocates¶

Referral Economics (CAC Compression)¶

5. Immutable Proof Infrastructure (Trust Capital)¶

Proof System Architecture¶

Why This Matters¶

Moat Summary (Investor Framing)¶

Why This Business is Defensible¶

Critical Success Requirements¶

Competitive Threat Assessment¶

Why £500M+ Outcome is Rational¶

Market & TAM (Category Expansion Strategy)¶

UK Dog Food Market Structure (2025)¶

The Clinical Safety Barrier: What Actually Blocks Conversion¶

Butternut Box Validates the TAM¶

Our Positioning vs. Butternut Box¶

The Category Expansion Thesis¶

Our Positioning in the Expanded Market¶

UK Premium SAM & SOM¶

Conservative Plan Can Still Fund¶

Pricing & Unit Economics (Target Ranges)¶

ARPU Target (Blended, ex-VAT)¶

Pricing Bands (Fixed, Launch Pricing)¶

Cost Targets & Revised COGS Path¶

Co-pack (independent reality, first 18 months)¶

COGS Stop-Rule¶

Make vs. Buy Review Gate¶