If 75% of revenue depends on one customer
2026NowDeadline · Decision window: 13 days until the reply on the supply contract
Realistic synthesis
The people, events, figures, and technology in this matter are stated assumptions. They are not to be treated as information about real individuals or as observed events. Background documents are separate sources, and symbolic interpretations are recorded as discovery paths.
The question to decide
A five-year exclusive contract would raise the largest customer's share of revenue from 45% to 75%, and the dedicated equipment expansion would consume all cash on hand plus additional borrowing. The customer promises a minimum purchase volume but demands a right to renegotiate prices after two years. How much of this volume should the company accept, and how much room should it keep to win other customers?
Who decidesThe CEO and board of a parts manufacturer
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The largest customer currently accounts for 45% of revenue, and a new contract would raise it to 75%. Decision deadline: 13 days to reply to the supply contract.
2026 fictional case · Putting more revenue in the hands of the largest customer. The people, organizations, figures, and events are a synthetic premise constructed for comparison.
- Premise 1The largest customer currently accounts for 45% of revenue, and a new contract would raise it to 75%.
- Premise 2The expansion requires all cash on hand plus additional borrowing, and the equipment is hard to convert to other products.
- Premise 3The customer promises a minimum purchase volume but demands the right to renegotiate price after two years.
Where it holdsPlant expansion, exclusive supply, funding commitment
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Exceptions to the minimum purchase commitment and the scope of its substantive guarantee
- Unknown 2The cost of converting the equipment to other uses
- Unknown 3Actual demand from new customers to diversify toward
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will verify “exceptions to the minimum purchase commitment and the scope of its substantive guarantee,” and re-decide if new verification changes the tradeoff of an option.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will verify “the cost of converting the equipment to other uses,” and re-decide if new verification changes the tradeoff of an option.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation window will verify “actual demand from new customers to diversify toward,” and re-decide if new verification changes the tradeoff of an option.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The customer extended the exclusivity period in exchange for adding an external guarantor to the minimum purchase volume guarantee.
Two new customers confirmed small-quantity orders, but unit prices were lower than for existing products.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Where is the continuity of a company rooted once its members, customers, and purpose have changed?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.- OECD · SMEs and entrepreneurship accessed 2026-09-08
- ICA · Cooperative identity, values and principles accessed 2026-09-08
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-VENTURE-02· version 1.4.0- Content identity, SHA-256
87eb69c1f6f15d58f93288d42fc52349418c82e794be795affadc1f722d1d3c0- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON