What it is: a greenfield standalone — DevenLite + minimal DevenDiligence + minimal integration-reliant VDR; opinionated, less configurable; not quite a rewrite fit-to-need.json. The LMM vehicles are subsumed as DevenMnA components — incl. the C3/C4/C6 SDE/valuation micro-products TSK-49 #7 — and the DDD core sits at value realization, exactly where every current column is weakest (5 contexts) devenmna-greenfield-thesis. Fit-to-need (AGREED): the only column with native lifecycle stages (4 — incl. DD 93, the matrix's top score, and value-realization 87); v23 and v24 carry zero native stages. fit-to-need-canonical Scoring semantics: the fit-to-need scores = full target scope / definition of done — the 9-month commitment is the MVP: a general ~50% of each stage's need-to-fit scope, thin breadth across all 9 stages, not 100% of a few Diego 2026-08-18 · Am.2.
What runs (bold staffing — Am.1 + Am.2)
Diego + RomanDiego 0.5 build + 0.5 venture management (team, product, finances, vendors) — fully decoupled from Devensoft platform operations; Roman 1.0 — crew = 3.5 FTE TSK-49 Am.2
2 Talmatic engineers$5k each = $10k/mo (net +$10k/mo) — join the crew; "2 architects + 2 engineers × agentic" TSK-49 Am.1 5c
KAZ ~$10k/morestructured staff-aug → full hand-off: v23 maintenance + self-serve reports + builds DevenMCP (the "we have AI" signal); custom report dev curtailed TSK-49 Am.1 5b
$1.9M FY26 basecarried — provisional flag
What pauses
F1–F6fundamentals — auth/session, health, DB, CI/CD, infra, DI bridge
AI-deck P1–P3the BYOM build
Tier-2 instrumentsdemand-signal validation for C3–C6
DevenLite-standaloneabsorbed into DevenMnA TSK-49 #6
The Hedge planall D1/D2/D3 path variables, factor model + presets below
Timing reference baseline (Diego 2026-08-18): a production-ready MVP in the same 9-month window as Hedge, committing a general ~50% of each stage's need-to-fit scope — thin breadth across all 9 stages, not 100% of a few. The build itself remains unsized in dev-weeks (TSK-30 ≥1w×1.5 first-cut rule; §6 fog #1); the sizing deep-dive gate validates the ~50% slice. Capacity envelope — NOT build sizing (bold-path factors only, Am.2 tiered per-person — supersedes Am.1 5d in part): (0.5+1.0)×2.4× + 2.0×1.3× = 6.2 eff-FTE × 39w × 0.5h/8h-day overhead (93.75% eng-time) ≈ ~227 dev-wk — the gate's feasibility equation: 50% of full-scope effort ≤ ~227 dev-wk. Hedge keeps the existing model (2h/8h + current factors — 105.3/43.8/61.5 stand; committed net-new is branch-dependent: DevenLite ≈ ~47–53, DevenDiligence ≈ ~18–26, no choice = Tier-2 signal work only). No demand evidence — lifecycle-fit phrasing only ("what the market wants" is banned in the pitch). NLM 77–98% superseded — never cited. TSK-48 fit-to-need verification complete 2026-08-19 (no load-bearing cell moved). BTDR-0010 Am.2 filed (2026-08-18): Hedge Tier-1 = the LMM Vehicle Choice — deferred leadership decision, no vehicle committed, none recommended ("DevenDiligence recommended" stays pitch-side); leadership-decides; tool encoding synced (TSK-56).
Decision mechanics (pitch §7): Eric + Thom decide the fork. What would change the recommendation: a DevenMnA sizing deep-dive gate (TSK-48 verification of the agreed matrix completed 2026-08-19 — no cell moved, gate passed). The unchosen path pauses — resource reality, never ultimatum.
Reference basis — comparable v1 builds (Am.2 · provisional / from-memory benchmarks / confidence Medium)
DealRoomM&A deal room — ~1 yr, 2–4 people ≈ 1–3 py to credible v1
AffinityPE/deal CRM — ~2 yrs, 3–8 eng ≈ 3–8 py
Attio~3 yrs to GA
Basecamp 2004~0.5 py
Baremetricssolo — ~1 mo
Agency consensusB2B SaaS MVP 0.5–2 py; production-grade v1 2–9 py
Takeaway: at blended ~2.35× agentic leverage the plan deploys conventionally ~10 py of output — 2–4× what comparable v1 products needed — aggressive, not pessimistic.