ACCESS Market Analysis Ready
Truth Setup — ACCESS Market Analysis
Prompt 1 output. Built before trusting the model, against the real file
vault/Kobold Vault/meetings/2026-04-16 Kobold - ACCESS Market Analysis.md.
1. Source inventory
| ID | Source | Type | Date | Owner | Status | Can support | Should NOT support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | ACCESS Market Analysis note | meeting note / model | 2026-04-16 | Kobold (unattributed) | unknown | a record of the internal sizing exercise | any externally-defensible market size or revenue figure on its own |
That's the catch on inventory alone: there is only one source, and it cites no upstream sources. Every number in it — market size, prices, well counts — appears without a reference, owner, or as-of date. A model whose inputs have no provenance can't be the authority for a number that travels.
2. Fact / assumption / estimate split
The note labels a block "Assumptions," but the split shows the costume runs deeper than that block.
Stated as fact (but actually unsourced):
- Total market = 49,709 stages (P&P 27,780 / Ball Drop 6,046 / CT Sleeves 15,883).
- Total wells 2025 = 5,548; 2026 projected = 5,709 (+2.9%).
- Completion revenue by method totals $187,750,400 (USD).
Assumptions requiring human ownership:
- Retail price $5,000/stage, cost $2,000/stage, margin $3,000/stage (60%), ROI 150%.
- "P&P share held constant" to project 2026 P&P wells.
Estimates / scenarios (not outcomes):
- ACCESS at 5% / 10% market; fixed 3,000 / 5,000 stages.
Interpretations / judgments:
- "Plug & Perf dominates — primary conversion target."
- "CT Sleeves show strong adoption."
Open questions:
- Where does the 49,709-stage market size come from, and as of when?
- Is $5,000/stage USD or CAD, and is it Kobold's actual ACCESS price or a placeholder?
- Who owns the $2,000/stage cost figure?
3. Conflict log
| # | Conflict | Why it matters | Resolvable from the note? | Human decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | ROI is identical (150%) in every scenario | The ROI "output" is just the input ratio restated; it carries no information and can't validate any scenario | No | Decide whether ROI belongs in the model at all, or compute it against real cost/capital |
| C2 | ACCESS price assumption ($5,000/stage) vs P&P actual revenue-per-stage ($4,969) in the revenue table | Two different prices used in one model; which applies to ACCESS? | No | Confirm the real ACCESS price and reconcile |
| C3 | P&P revenue is exactly $138,000,000 while the others are precise ($21,161,000 / $28,589,400) | $138M looks rounded/plugged; the $4,969/stage appears back-derived from it, not independent | Partly | Confirm whether $138M or the per-stage rate is the real input |
| C4 | Currency unlabeled in the Assumptions block; revenue tables say USD | A CAD/USD mix-up silently moves every output | No | Label every monetary input with its currency |
4. Human-review gate
Before this becomes a leadership-facing deck or decision:
- Attach a real source (and date/owner) to the 49,709-stage market size and the well counts.
- Confirm the ACCESS price and the cost basis, with currency.
- Decide what ROI is supposed to mean here — as written it's a tautology, not a result.
- Decide whether the "dominates / strong adoption" judgments are claims you'll defend or framing.
Do not build the deck until the gate is cleared. The arithmetic is fine; the foundation isn't.
Structure — workbook spec
A trustworthy workbook keeps truth in separate places. The spec defines where each kind lives before a single formula is written.
| Tab | Holds | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Raw data | market size, well counts | loaded exactly, each value carries a source ID + date |
| Assumptions | price, cost, margin | name, value, unit, source, owner, status |
| Calculations | revenue, scenarios | formulas only, no hardcoded outputs |
| Checks | tie-outs, recalc test | pass/fail smoke alarm |
| Summary | the ROI / revenue view | driven entirely by the tabs above |
The test the spec enforces
If I change an assumption, does the relevant output change for the right reason?
A spreadsheet that cannot recalculate is not a model. The current ACCESS analysis fails this test before it's even rebuilt: its ROI is a fixed ratio, so no assumption change moves it. The spec exists to make that impossible in the rebuilt version.
Workbook Doctor — ACCESS Market Analysis
Prompt 2 output. The note is laid out as a model (assumptions, market tables, revenue rollups, an ROI scenario table), so the workbook lens applies even though it's stored as markdown.
2.1 Workbook Map
| "Sheet" | Purpose | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assumptions | price/cost/margin/ROI inputs | assumptions | active, unsourced |
| Market Stage Counts | 49,709 stages split by method | raw data (claimed) | unsourced |
| Well Counts & Growth | 5,548 → 5,709 wells, +2.9% | calculations | internally consistent |
| Completion Revenue by Method | $187.75M total | outputs | partly back-derived |
| ACCESS ROI Scenarios | 4 scenarios, all 150% ROI | outputs | tautological (see scan) |
| Key Insights | "P&P dominates", conversion range | interpretation | unflagged judgments |
Assumption map: none of the foundational inputs carry source / owner / date / unit-currency. The "Assumptions" block lists values but not where they came from.
2.2 Formula Risk Scan
| Location | Issue | Why it matters | Evidence | Human review? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROI Scenarios, ROI % column | Output doesn't change when assumptions (volume) change | The recalc test — the single most important Excel check — fails here | ROI = margin/cost = 3000/2000 = 150% by definition; all four scenarios print 150% regardless of stage count | Yes |
| ROI Scenarios, whole table | One-variable scaling presented as scenario modeling | Every row is just stages × {$5,000, $2,000, $3,000}; there's no independent scenario logic to stress |
Margin and cost columns are exact multiples of stages in every row | Yes |
| Assumptions / Revenue tables | Two prices in one model ($5,000 assumed vs $4,969 actual P&P) | Ambiguous which price drives ACCESS economics | $5,000 in Assumptions; $4,969/stage in the P&P revenue row | Yes |
| P&P revenue = $138,000,000 | Suspiciously round vs precise peers; likely a plug | A rounded headline number that the per-stage rate was reverse-engineered from reads as independent but isn't | $21,161,000 and $28,589,400 are precise; $138M is exact; 27,780 × $4,969 = $138.04M | Yes |
| All monetary inputs | Currency unlabeled in Assumptions | A silent CAD/USD mismatch moves every downstream number | "$5,000/stage" with no currency; revenue tables tagged USD | Yes |
| 49,709 market size; 5,548 wells | Numbers with no source or date | The whole model rests on these and nothing backs them | No citation anywhere in the note | Yes |
What actually ties out (a good reviewer says both):
- Revenue rollup: $138,000,000 + $21,161,000 + $28,589,400 = $187,750,400. ✓ matches stated total.
- Growth: 5,548 + 161 = 5,709, and 161 / 5,548 = 2.9%. ✓
- Conversion: 5% × 49,709 × $5,000 = $12.43M; 10% = $24.86M. ✓ matches the stated $12.4M–$24.9M.
- Within each ROI row the margin/cost arithmetic is correct.
The danger isn't broken arithmetic. It's a clean-looking model resting on unsourced inputs with one "output" that's really an input in disguise.
2.3 Repair Plan
Must fix before sharing
- Source the market size (49,709 stages) and well counts — citation, owner, as-of date.
- Confirm ACCESS price and cost basis, with currency, and reconcile the $5,000 vs $4,969 conflict.
- Replace or remove the ROI column. If ROI stays, compute it against real invested cost/capital so it can actually move between scenarios.
Should fix for maintainability 4. Mark the "Assumptions" values as assumption/estimate/placeholder individually. 5. Resolve whether $138M or the per-stage rate is the true input; stop presenting a derived number as independent.
Optional polish 6. Reframe "dominates" / "strong adoption" as sourced claims or label them as framing.
Questions for the owner
- Is this an internal sizing sketch or intended to back a customer/leadership decision? The bar differs. As written it's the former dressed as the latter.
2.4 Verification Memo
| Check | Status |
|---|---|
| Formula consistency | Pass (arithmetic is internally consistent) |
| Source traceability | Fail (no inputs cite a source) |
| Assumptions labeled | Fail (values listed, provenance/currency missing) |
| Checks present | Fail (no recalc/tie-out checks; ROI can't move) |
| Stale data | Unknown (no dates on inputs) |
| Output reliability | Fail (ROI is a tautology; market revenue rests on unsourced size) |
Not ready for a leadership deck or decision. Internally consistent, externally indefensible.
Pretty-But-Wrong Review — ACCESS Market Analysis
Prompt 5 output. A second model, fresh context, reads the note as a skeptical reviewer and enumerates. No fixes. Ranked.
Must fix before sharing
ROI is a tautology, not a result. Every scenario reads 150% because ROI is defined as the fixed margin/cost ratio ($3,000/$2,000). Change the stage count and ROI never moves. Presenting it in a scenario table implies the scenarios were tested against profitability; they weren't. Either remove the column or compute ROI against real invested capital so it can vary.
Foundational numbers have no source. 49,709 total stages, the method split, 5,548 wells — the entire model rests on these and none cites where it came from, who owns it, or as of when. Numbers without a date or source, presented as fact.
Two prices, unreconciled. The Assumptions block uses $5,000/stage; the revenue table uses $4,969/stage for Plug & Perf. A reader can't tell which drives ACCESS economics, and the gap isn't acknowledged.
Currency unlabeled on inputs. The Assumptions block gives dollar figures with no currency while the revenue tables are tagged USD. A silent CAD/USD assumption would move every output.
Should fix before important review
Assumptions presented as facts. Price, cost, and "P&P share held constant" are judgment calls shown as settled inputs. Each should be marked assumption / estimate / placeholder with an owner.
$138,000,000 reads as a plug. It's exactly round next to precise peers ($21,161,000 / $28,589,400), and the $4,969/stage rate looks back-derived from it. A derived number is presented as if it were independent.
Polish
- Unsourced judgments. "Plug & Perf dominates," "CT Sleeves show strong adoption" — defensible framings, but stated as findings. Tag as interpretation or attach support.
Reviewer's note
What's striking is how much does tie out — the rollup, the growth math, the conversion range are
all correct. That's the trap. The arithmetic being right is what makes the unsourced foundation and
the tautological ROI easy to miss. Polish read as trust. The file looks done; the truth layer was
never built. Clear the human-review gate in 00-source-packet.md before any of this becomes a slide.