Web · Productized workflow / SaaS

Catalog Delta: distributor catalog change QA

Compare permissioned catalogs; identify changed SKUs/specs; emit source-linked review queues and approved import files. Keep pricing decisions human-approved.

Who pays and who might buy?

Customer: Distributors repeatedly reconciling supplier price/specification changes

Acquirer hypothesis: A PIM/commerce implementation agency or distributor software vendor

Acquisition motives: Vertical integration · Strategic capability tuck-in

Minimum proof to seek

3 paid teams; 1,000 manually labelled changed-record checks; >=98% field precision in supported formats; >=70% review-time reduction against baseline.

Competition and stop rule

Existing PIM importers and general document tools; a supported-format QA wedge must outperform a spreadsheet.

Stop when: Stop if supplier rights are unclear, accuracy fails on normal inputs or each supplier needs a custom project.

Different tiers, different businesses

A $1k–$10k catalog comparison engine and labelled test corpus can be a replacement-value asset where all data rights transfer. A $10k–$50k service line needs repeated paid jobs and standardized formats.

Price against verified operating profit OR a buyer-confirmed payback/buy-versus-build case. The target price is a negotiation hypothesis, not a valuation.

The $1m version is recurring catalog quality control with retained distributors and verified unit economics. At $10m, PIM or commerce vendors would need a defensible integration/data layer and material customer adoption. At $100m, the thesis changes to category-level product-data infrastructure with differentiated rights and distribution—not reselling client catalog data. These are distinct future business models, not 30–90-day valuation forecasts. The economics lab backsolves the selected price only after its assumptions are accepted.