# Productization Gaps Memo

This memo evaluates GrantFlow as a product asset from three lenses.

## 1) Pilot Readiness

### Strengths

- Clear API workflow with explicit job states and traceability endpoints
- Existing demo surface (`/demo`) and sample artifacts in `docs/samples/`
- HITL approval/resume mechanics already available
- Export flow already packaged for review handoff (`/status/{job_id}/export-payload` -> `/export`)

### Blockers

- Product story is less obvious than technical story for non-engineering evaluators
- Pilot success criteria are not yet standardized in one document
- Grounded-output quality depends heavily on corpus quality and ingest discipline

### Confidence Increase (highest leverage)

- Standardized pilot package template: target donors, baseline metrics, success criteria, exit criteria.

## 2) Enterprise Readiness

### Strengths

- Readiness model (`/health`, `/ready`) with policy-aware diagnostics
- Queue-backed execution mode (`redis_queue`) with dedicated worker path
- Startup guardrails for persistent stores and production auth defaults
- Extensive integration/contract test coverage in `grantflow/tests/`

### Blockers

- Built-in auth posture is API-key based (no native enterprise IAM in repo)
- Operational documentation exists but enterprise deployment blueprint is still lightweight
- SQLite is practical for early production but may not satisfy all enterprise durability/concurrency requirements

### Confidence Increase (highest leverage)

- Publish a reference production topology guide with explicit scaling and operational boundaries.

## 3) Acquisition Attractiveness

### Strengths

- Strong wedge as workflow/control layer instead of generic text generation
- API-first architecture is embeddable by workflow/proposal platforms
- Governance and traceability primitives can fit broader response-management products

### Blockers

- Market-facing differentiation is not yet packaged as a crisp “why now / why us” artifact set
- Limited public pilot evidence bundle with quantified before/after outcomes
- Product packaging is still engineering-led rather than buyer-led

### Confidence Increase (highest leverage)

- 2-3 documented pilot case studies with measurable cycle-time and review-quality deltas.

## Gap Categories

### Positioning / Documentation Gaps

- Need tighter ICP/buyer language and “not for” framing in top-level docs
- Need a concise commercial evaluation path for partners and acquirers

### Demo / UX Gaps

- Demo story currently depends on operator fluency with endpoints
- Need one canonical live demo flow and one no-risk artifact-only backup flow

### Deployment / Ops Gaps

- Need stronger “minimum production profile” examples by environment role (api/worker)
- Need explicit operational SLO suggestions for pilots

### Security / Trust Gaps

- API key auth is documented, but trust narrative for enterprise controls is still minimal
- Need explicit guidance on where platform-layer IAM/audit controls should sit

### Product Feature Gaps

- No reviewer-facing UI product layer beyond minimal demo console
- Donor-specific strategy depth still uneven across long-tail donors
- Grounding quality controls are present, but corpus governance workflow can be improved
