Google Deal — Engineering Owns Resource Projection

Situation

Directed that engineering (not finance/biz dev) should own projecting what the Google deal requires in terms of team size and capacity. Participated in Google Deal review meeting where consolidated $6M/yr development fee proposal was developed, including engineering guardrails (live patching scope limits, early renewal trigger). Deal structure: $6M dev fee for 5-7 senior engineers, uncapped variable usage fees (removing $1M cap), 15-25% margin on premium listings + MDF, early renewal trigger if scope exceeds funded team capacity.

Reasoning

Only engineering can accurately project how many people a $6M commitment actually requires — wrong sizing means either understaffing (quality risk) or overpaying (margin risk). Early renewal trigger and live patching guardrails protect engineering from open-ended scope creep. Engineering must shape deals before they're presented, not after terms are committed. Bjorn presenting to Google Thursday, so projection needed now.

Additional Context

Follows months of Google deal evolution — from Jan scope change holdout through Feb restructure commitment to Mar unified proposal. Kelly and Max already collaborating on deal details. Nathan involved in live patching scope discussions.

Observed Evidence

Direct quote in group DM directing engineering to own the projection. Fathom meeting summary with detailed deal terms. Max's DM mentioning Kelly collaboration and Nathan live patching thread.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis