TT Claude Memory

project_partner_model_three_shapes

Properties1
description2026-04-22 — per-partner-per-family commercial model is NOT uniform across families. Shape A = three-partner triad (succession + tax + faith) per jurisdiction, for Wills/Trusts/Probate/Delegation. Shape B = competitive marketplace of many dealers per category globally with category-sponsorship tier, for Catalogue. Shape C = platform-integration (TBD Z11-ASSETS), for Assets. Refines earlier "one partner per jurisdiction per family" framing. Recovered from 2026-04-16 brainstorm evolution Rich flagged had been lost in recent discussions.

4 min read

Contextual origin: Rich flagged 2026-04-22 that the per-partner-per-family model had drifted in my framing. Three key observations forced the refinement:

  1. Catalogue needs many dealers, not one. No single dealer handles the variety of items in Catalogue (model railways, fine art, classic cars, watches, books, wine). Dealers compete against each other for collector deals. Some pay for “prestige ownership” of a category (Rails of Sheffield sponsors Model Railways on LegacyLists).
  2. Legal families need a triad, not a single partner. Per 2026-04-16-inherit-tt-roadmap-ideas-design.md v2.0 (Thursday 16 April 2026 evening brainstorm), MFI pivoted from single-adviser to three-adviser (succession + tax + faith) comparison engine. Each consumer shopping for a will needs succession AND tax help — sometimes faith too. This was already in partner-model.md v2.5 + inherit-governance-charter.md v2.1 + partners-by-type-ew-sco-ire.md v1.0, but my recent session framing had collapsed it back to “one partner per jurisdiction.”
  3. Assets is probably hybrid. Platform integrations (Addepar, Wealth.com, SJP, Enness) compete at client-firm level — multiple preferred partners per category, per-platform API-tier licensing. Needs Z11-ASSETS research to confirm.

Three shapes

Shape A — Legal-advisory triad per jurisdiction

Applies to: Wills, Trusts, Probate, Delegation, Tax (where per-jurisdiction)

Structure: For each jurisdiction, three advisory partner types — succession + tax + faith. Faith is per-faith-tradition per jurisdiction (so E&W has Islamic + Jewish + Hindu cells). 2 alternates per cell. Total Phase-1 partner ask for 3-jurisdiction launch (E&W + Scotland + Switzerland) ≈ 3 × (1 succession + 1 tax + 3 faith) × 3 per-cell = ~45 partner candidates; Phase-1 minimum to launch ≈ 15 signed primary partners.

Revenue model: 35% fee-share per professional engagement. 2-3 fee events per estate (will-drafting + tax-planning + optional faith-advisory). Per-estate TT revenue ~£175 (will-only) → ~£1,800-2,500 (triad-engaged HNW). See partner-model.md v2.5 fee table.

Competitive dynamic: Non-competitive within jurisdiction — Brodies IS Scotland-Wills; no second Scotland-Wills partner. Partners compete on quality/responsiveness, not on being chosen as the jurisdiction partner.

UI surface: MFI three-adviser comparison engine (mockup 32-comparison-engine-grid + spec §§34-35). Mockups 01–31 predate this and still reflect the single-partner frame — flagged for realignment (not done).

Shape B — Competitive commercial marketplace per category, globally

Applies to: Catalogue only.

Structure: Many dealer-partners per category globally (model railways, fine art, classic cars, watches, books, wine, coins, stamps, ceramics, textiles, jewellery, militaria, etc.). Per-category sponsorship tier (“prestige ownership” — Rails of Sheffield owns Model Railways; Bonhams owns Fine Art). 50-200 dealers at launch-plus-12mo across categories.

Revenue model (layered):

  1. Transaction-commission on dealer-sold items (2-5% of GMV)
  2. Dealer subscription tiers (bronze/silver/gold)
  3. Category-sponsorship fees (~£X/year per category per prestige dealer)
  4. B2B API-direct seat-licensing for dealers consuming InheritKit-catalogue SDK without LL frontend

Competitive dynamic: Explicitly competitive. Dealers bid for collector leads (e.g. Bill Frith’s model railway collection). Category sponsorship gives first-right-of-refusal + featured placement but not exclusivity.

UI surface: LegacyLists brand-surface. LL becomes reference implementation per 2026-04-19-ll-v6-to-inheritkit-migration.md.

Library precedent for Z12-MARKETPLACE: Invaluable + Catawiki (multi-category competitive-bidding marketplaces) > eBay/Etsy. Stripe Connect marketplace patterns. Eghbal competitive-contributor dynamics.

Shape C — Platform-integration hybrid (PROVISIONAL — awaits Z11-ASSETS)

Applies to: Assets (likely).

Structure: Multiple preferred platform-integrations per category per jurisdiction. Candidates: Addepar, Wealth.com, SJP, Enness (UK-HNW); US wealth-management platform integrations (Personal Capital, Tiller, etc.).

Revenue model (candidate): Per-platform API-tier licensing + referral-sharing.

Status: My best guess; awaiting Z11-ASSETS research to confirm against library evidence.

Claim wording for architecture-proposal v1.5

Three sub-claims (not one):

  • A4.40 — Partner-model Shape A (legal-advisory triad per jurisdiction) — formal wording draft in session 2026-04-22
  • A4.40a — Partner-model Shape B (Catalogue competitive marketplace + category-sponsorship)
  • A4.40b — Partner-model Shape C (Assets platform-integration hybrid, provisional pending Z11)

Operational bandwidth flag

At α_max + D, full Phase-1 partner outreach hits ~45 candidates (succession/tax/faith × 3 jurisdictions × 3 per-cell). Plus Catalogue dealer-recruitment (50-200 dealers). Plus Assets platform-integrations (6-12 platforms). Total ~100-250 partner relationships in Phase-1.

feedback_ai_raises_delegation_bar.md + feedback_scope_vs_commercial_reality.md both bear on whether this is tractable under solo-bootstrap. Likely requires AI-assisted partner outreach pipeline + prioritised tiered engagement (primary partners first; alternates + Catalogue-dealers Phase-1b).

Graph View

Backlinks