Bio
Tagline
One line. Goes on the website header, the deck cover, the email signature, the boilerplate.
[Placeholder — tagline to be written. Candidate direction: "Concrete-level strength at timber-level weight."]
Bios
Three lengths, same story. Anyone writing about Strong by Form copies from here instead of writing their own version.
[Placeholder — short bio. For: event listings, speaker intros, email signatures, the end of a press release.]
[Placeholder — medium bio. For: press-release boilerplate, partner and investor intros, LinkedIn company description, media kits.]
[Placeholder — long bio. For: the website About page, investor memos, journalist backgrounders. Covers: the problem, the technology, the three product lines, proof and validation, partners and investors, where the company is heading.]
Value propositions
Core
The structural slab. It competes with concrete. The benchmark is structural systems carrying the same loads at the same spans.
Partners CLT and mass timber manufacturers, prefab producers
- Market expansion: from the EUR 1B CLT market into the EUR 112B reinforced concrete slab market
- Higher margins on their existing lines. one number needed Three versions are in circulation: 50% sales margin increase, 44% gross margin uplift, 1.5x multiple.
- End-of-line upgrade under 250k EUR: a storage area, a gluing system, a mechanical press. Production can keep running, doesn't require specialised hires.
- Up to 80% of each tree used, including species that currently have no market. Their existing resource base becomes worth more.
Customers construction companies, developers, structural engineers, architects
- 10m spans proven, 12m in prototype, the optimal range for data centres.
- 80% less weight than concrete. Lighter slabs reduce material needs for foundations, columns and beams, reducing total material costs.
- Cost parity with concrete on total structural cost, validated by str.ucture.
- Installs with standard CLT screws. No new tools, no retraining.
- Panels can be airlifted and rapidly assembled: defense, humanitarian and emergency infrastructure.
Skin
3D interior cladding, in market. Formed veneer, premium.
Partners manufacturers and distributors
- A new product category for the portfolio: industrial-scale 3D wood panels, with minimal technical adaptation on their side.
- The Woodflow-cell is modular.
Customers architects, designers, developers, specifiers
- Continuous curves, organic patterns and textures that used to require carving. Panels from the catalogue or developed together with the studio.
- 3mm shell, under 5 kg/m2, about 88% FSC-certified wood.
- Removable fasteners, no adhesive. Panels come off, move and get reused, which counts for LEED and BREEAM. People consistently miss this feature, so say it early.
- Premium positioning. The efficiency argument runs against comparable high-end 3D wood, and the price should never suggest otherwise.
Motion
The technology in mobility. Whether it stays a separate product line is open, see Working.
Customers train operators, rolling stock manufacturers, automotive
- 7% lighter than aluminium at the same stiffness
- Offsets up to 80% of CO2 emissions compared to aluminium.
- Lighter vehicles: better fuel economy, longer range for electric vehicles, better braking and handling.
- A warm, natural interior that aluminium, fiberglass and plastic laminates can't match.
- Improved sound absorption — a real benefit of the material, kept qualitative for now: no acoustic data is on file yet, so mention it as a property, not as a number.
Case studies
Goldbeck
Germany's largest industrial-construction group. The case study that answers "will anyone actually build with it".
The story so far
- LOI signed, testing underway. Named first in the deck's LOI list for first commercial projects (Goldbeck, Gropyus, Renggli).
- The stability result from the Goldbeck test is one of the small stories worth collecting and telling.
Still needed to make it a full case study
- [What exactly is being tested, since when, and against which criteria]
- [The timeline: when does testing conclude, and what decision follows]
- [The stability result, told as a story with numbers]
- [Named contact on the Goldbeck side]
Gropyus
The register-changer. Nothing else in the material carries the same weight with engineers, so it opens every technical conversation.
The story so far
- The creep test: full-scale 10m prototype, three months under sustained load, 12mm deflection against a 32mm European recommendation. Designed for 5.5 kN/m2 (deck p.13). VINCI called it "a fantastic achievement".
- The assembly: Gropyus's own team assembled the prototype with their own wall systems, using standard CLT screws, and called the process straightforward and fast. No new trade, no new tooling, no retraining. This is the anecdote that answers the adoption fear.
- TRL 6: the test took Core there and enabled the EUR 2.5M EIC grant application (memorandum p.23).
- The deck undersells this: p.13 calls it a "prototype test" and gives no result numbers. The 12mm vs 32mm figure belongs on the slide.
Still needed to make it a full case study
- [Test report reference and date, for the source file]
- [Photos cleared for external use, beyond the confidential-stamped deck images]
The str.ucture cost study
Independent validation of the claim investors interrogate hardest: cost parity with concrete.
The story so far
- Independent study by engineering firm str.ucture GmbH: a 6-storey office building in Germany, 4,800 m2 total floor area (memorandum p.17).
- Cost parity with concrete, clearly cheaper than CLT. Average structural material costs per m2: Woodflow Core 1,611 EUR at entry pricing and 1,576 EUR at scale, against 1,598 EUR for reinforced concrete and 1,702 EUR for CLT boards.
- Basis: Core slabs at 250 EUR/m2 (initial projects) and 215 EUR/m2 (at scale) per the memo footnotes; the deck quotes parity "at 230 EUR/m2". The 200 to 250 range we recommend holds either way.
- Conservative by design: the study covers structural materials only and excludes faster installation, smaller foundations and reduced transport. Say that every time.
Still needed to make it a full case study
- [Report name and date; what of it may be shown outside due diligence]
Skin: the market entry
The execution story: a product taken to market once already, with the same playbook Core needs. Tell it as proof the team can commercialise.
The story so far
- Reference installations doing the selling: Bang & Olufsen flagship Santiago, CMPC headquarters lobby, Leonard's HQ Paris, Deutsche Bahn and NS train interiors, Quito Airport and a VINCI UK project.
- Distribution built: The Wood Veneer Hub / Freed Veneers Group (UK, US, Australasia) and LAclave (Spain, EU fulfilment). The WVH agreement is exclusive for USA, UK, Australia and NZ, contingent on USD 1M in purchase orders.
- 1,200 qualified leads from the US launch. Collections co-developed with FINSA. Design collaborations: Paolo Mauri Interni, Giò Forma at Milan Design Week.
- Showrooms in Paris (VINCI) and Milan; a US showroom is planned for 2026 (deck p.22).
- Gensler interest: a senior associate "loved two collections"; four World Cup stadium proposals are out.
Still needed to make it a full case study
- [Which references are cleared for public use, with photos]
- [The B&O or CMPC story with dates and one number]
Motion: NS and the rail entry
The technology proving itself in a second regulated industry.
The story so far
- Ceiling panels for Nederlandse Spoorwegen: real panels, installed and photographed. 4.77 kg/m2 (Motion deck p.16).
- UIC Sustainability Award nomination by NS for the work (deck p.25).
- Pilots budgeted with NS and SNCF for 2026, with 3 to 5 possible projects; first train sales expected within 3 years (deck p.25).
- Satisfactory fire test results with Talgo (deck p.25), the first sector-specific fire proof point anywhere in the materials.
- Declared interest from SNCF, DB, Siemens, CAF and Alstom; joining Europe's Rail, with an Innotrans 2026 showcase in the EU-Rail booth. A grant with FINSA for a rail-specific formulation runs with Talgo and NS as advisors (deck pp.24–25).
- Regional train seats co-developed with Panik Ebner Design, to be unveiled Q3 2026 (Motion deck p.17). BMW pilots are ongoing but under NDA, so they stay out of external materials.
Still needed to make it a full case study
- [NS project scope, dates and contract status, stated precisely]
Case studies to develop next
Candidates found in the materials. Promote to a full card once there's a story with numbers and a name.
- DB Weather Cabin: a shelter developed with DB Mindbox, installed at Berlin Südkreuz, with an "up to 70% CO2 reduction" claim attached (one-pager). Also the likely origin of the false "70% lighter than aluminium" figure.
- The Woodflow Bike: the world's first stamped-wood bike, JEC World Startup Booster Sustainability Prize 2025, built with Dassault Systèmes. Always frame it as a tech demonstrator, never a product.
- FINSA line integration demo: Woodflow Core integration at FINSA's Xilonor CLT facility, planned for 2026.
- BMW pilots: ongoing, real, and under NDA. Nothing external until cleared.
Credibility bank
Company-wide
- Strategic investors on the cap table: VINCI, FINSA, Pfeifer, CMPC. Framed as a deployment network, not as decoration.
- Board member Christina Claeson-Jonsson (spelling per the deck), who leads NCC R&D and is President of ENCORD, the European Network of Construction Companies for R&D. The deck lists her among advisors confirm board vs advisor
- Advisors: Kevin Cardona (Director of Entrepreneurial Innovation at Leonard, VINCI's innovation unit; CIO BNP Paribas Real Estate; LP at Fifth Wall and Supernova Invest) and David Catta (15 years in engineered wood and mass timber, Senior Technical Advisor at CMPC).
- Patents granted in Chile, China, the USA and Germany; pending in the EU and worldwide. Covers the design-to-manufacturing technology, the Core panel system, connection nodes and the wood substrate (memorandum p.29).
- Awards: JEC World Startup Booster Sustainability Prize 2025, tocco bio-based material 2024, Hello Tomorrow Sustainable Construction 2023, Cleantech Open 2023, El Mercurio Startup of the Year 2020.
- Programmes: Plug and Play 2021, RESPOND by the BMW Foundation 2022, Future Forest Initiative 2023, M.Tech Accelerator 2019.
- Research and certification partners: University of Stuttgart (first MVP, 2021, owns no IP), Fraunhofer WKI (material science), KIT/VAKA (Core certification initiated 2025), Bern University of Applied Sciences (connection systems), University of Concepción, ITEC and Tecnalia (certification route).
Core
- Goldbeck: LOI signed, testing underway. The strongest adoption proof point available.
- Gropyus: full-scale 10m prototype, three months under sustained load, 12mm against a 32mm recommendation, assembled by their own team with standard CLT screws.
- Further LOIs: Renggli, VINCI, JM. In discussion: Blumer Lehmann, Müller Blaustein, NCC.
- str.ucture: independent cost-parity validation. 6-storey office building, 4,800 m2, full data in the data room.
- Fraunhofer: testing. Cooperation established 2024 to finalise material science and build the first full-scale prototype (memorandum p.22).
- CESEFOR three-story structure is a planned Series A goal with Xilonor
- TRL 6, technically validated; the prototype enabled a EUR 2.5M EIC grant application (memorandum p.23). An application, not an award, until it lands.
Skin
- Reference installations: Bang & Olufsen flagship Santiago, CMPC headquarters, Leonard's HQ Paris, Deutsche Bahn and NS interiors, Quito Airport, VINCI UK.
- Distribution: The Wood Veneer Hub / Freed Veneers Group (UK, US, Australasia) and LAclave (Spain, EU fulfilment).
- 1,200 qualified leads from the US launch.
- Collections co-developed with FINSA.
- Design collaborations: Paolo Mauri Interni, Giò Forma at Milan Design Week.
- Showrooms in Paris (VINCI) and Milan; US showroom planned 2026. Gensler engagement and four World Cup stadium proposals in play.
- TRL 8 (memorandum p.15).
Motion
- Delivered projects with Deutsche Bahn, NS and Talgo.
- BMW R&D contracts running.
- N+P interested.
- UIC Sustainability Award nomination by NS. Satisfactory fire tests with Talgo.
- Joining Europe's Rail; Innotrans 2026 showcase in the EU-Rail booth. Declared interest: SNCF, Siemens, CAF, Alstom.
- Regional train seats with Panik Ebner Design, unveiling Q3 2026.
What to say, what to stop saying
| Don't use | Use instead |
|---|---|
| "Sustainable alternative to concrete" as the opener | "Concrete-level strength at timber-level weight" |
| "An intermediary layer in a CLT panel" (Core) | "A lightweight structural slab built to compete directly with concrete" |
| "Low-grade" next to the product namei | "Can upcycle low-grade wood" / "can use non-commercial and low-grade wood" |
| "Low-grade Core" reads as low quality. If "low-grade" appears at all, it describes the feedstock, never the product. | |
| "Emulating the tree's structural efficiency" | Using biomimicry needs work |
| CLT comparisons throughout a documenti | Mostly compare Core to concrete. |
| Every CLT mention anchors Strong by Form inside the CLT market. Reducing how often CLT appears does more for "we compete with concrete" than any added sentence. | |
| "Full W-core slabs"i | "W-core" is the core layer, "Core" is the finished slab |
| Page 34 of the memorandum uses "Woodflow Core" for the whole element and "full W-core slabs" for a component. "Full" never modifies a part. | |
| "Linear-based" vs "strand-based" technology | Organise by product line: Core, Skin, Motion |
| "Advanced wood", or anything that sounds like Woodoo or Lingrove | "We don't densify or chemically modify wood, we form it." |
| "A high-margin architectural surface product" (Skin) | Industrial-scale 3D wood panels |
| "Woodflow-core", "Woodflow CORE", "W-CORE", "WOODFLOW MOTION" mixed freelyi | One spelling convention across all assets decide |
| The deck hyphenates lowercase, the memorandum uses all-caps, the Motion deck does both. Pick one and retire the rest, same rule as with the numbers. | |
| Calling LOIs "offtakes" | "LOIs, with testing underway" |
Company-wide
Company facts
| Fact | The detail |
|---|---|
| Product lines | Three: Core (structural slab), Skin (3D interior cladding), Motion (mobility interiors). |
| Strategic investors | VINCI, FINSA, Pfeifer, CMPC. |
| Independent validation | str.ucture on cost, Fraunhofer on testing, Gropyus on assembly.” |
| str.ucture cost study: 6-storey office building in Germany, 4,800 m2, full data in the data room (memorandum p.17). Fraunhofer cooperation since 2024 (p.22). Gropyus prototype test 2025 (p.23). [add report names and dates] | |
| Founded / HQ | Incorporated 2018 in Chile; HQ in Spain since 2024. Legal entity Woodflow Technologies, S.L. Veneer production runs in Chile; the pilot plant is planned for Spain.” |
| Memorandum p.2 (timeline) and p.40 (entity). | |
| Founders / leadership | Andrés Mitnik (CEO), Jorge Christie, Daniel Ortiz. confirm titlesi |
| The memo contradicts itself: p.30 has Ortiz as CTO and Christie as CPO, p.40 has Christie as CTO and Ortiz as COO. | |
The framing number for the whole company story: the category Strong by Form sells into is large and growing fast.
Industry statistics about modular construction and mass timber generally, not Woodflow specifically. Always attribute to the sources — never present these as measured Woodflow results.
Core
The headline fact: third-party, specific, hard to misquote. It opens every technical conversation. Assembled at Gropyus by their own team, designed for 5.5 kN/m2 (deck p.13). VINCI called it "a fantastic achievement".
Correct anyone rounding up: requests for 25.5 m spans and exterior use exist, and the proven envelope is 10 m, indoors. The deck's "spans of 14 m and above" (p.12) is ambition, not test data — that claim sits in the Working tab.
Always say what the figure includes: total structural materials, excluding foundations, transport and speed savings — which makes it conservative. Quoting the range instead of a single 230 EUR/m2 stops the collision with Skin's catalogue price. Study basis: 6-storey office, 4,800 m2, Germany; Core at 1,611 EUR/m2 entry and 1,576 at scale vs concrete 1,598 and CLT 1,702.
The only market set with a source attached, which settles the default until the bottom-up rebuild (see Working). The "$150B" in the deck and business plan carries no source and is retired. The expansion multiple (100x vs 80x) is still an open decision in Working.
A storage area, a gluing system, a mechanical press — no specialised hires. A company figure, credible but not externally validated.
The CLT side of the comparison is externally sourced; the Woodflow side is a company estimate (60 to 85% of the log; the deck says "up to 80%"). Prefer this comparison over the unsourced "400% higher forest yield" claim, which sits in Working.
Skin
Full spec: 3 mm formed-veneer shell, ~88% locally sourced FSC-certified wood plus 12% binder, MDF frame, panels 1,200 x 600 mm and 2,400 x 600 mm maxi.
Quote this range externally, never the 230 EUR/m2 catalogue figure — that number is the same as Core's target price, which is where the confusion starts. Positioned against Danzer, Oberflex and Tabu.
The traction headline for Skin, paired with the four delivered projects.
Which references are cleared for public use, with photos, is tracked on the Proof page.
Internal commercial terms: good for investor conversations, not for public materials without WVH's sign-off. The WVH agreement is exclusive for USA, UK, Australia and NZ, contingent on USD 1M in purchase orders.
Motion
Confirmed: 7%, not the "70%" that circulated (that was a CO2 claim about the DB Weather Cabin). 7% is a modest number to lead with — the stronger Motion arguments are the warm real-wood interior and equal stiffness at lower weight. Whether 7% appears in headlines is a decision for the weekly call.
The weight figure is solid. The CO2 figures attached to the same panel (9 / 16 kg CO2-eq) carry no sign, baseline or methodology and sit in Working until clarified.
Internal calculation: the top-5 train manufacturers sell 7,000+ cars a year, 600,000+ m2 of cladding. Say "internal estimate" whenever it's quoted.
The first Motion product that isn't cladding — worth planning comms around.
Internal targets: fine for investor conversations, not for public claims.
The company and the two-product story
"So is this just a construction materials company with one product?"
Strong by Form is a technology platform, one production technology behind three product lines.
Asked in ~half of all first meetings, across audiences."Aren't you like Woodoo or Lingrove?"
No. Strong by Form doesn't densify or chemically modify wood, it forms it. The differentiator is shape optimisation plus fibre alignment, and it's the first thing third parties cut when they summarise the company (it had to be forced back into Lux Research's report), so say it early and simply.
Investors who know the wood-tech landscape.Certification and timing
"When will Core be certified, and what happens until then?"
The route: leverage the EAD of an already-certified comparable product, the shortest credible path, cutting certification from 3 to 4 years down to an estimated 6 to 12 months. Until then, early deployments are possible where engineers can authorise novel materials: Switzerland, Luxembourg, Chile.
Caution before quoting a date: the business plan says 6 to 12 months, the deck says 12 to 24, the memorandum roadmap says EU certification 2028. The institutions named for the work: ITEC and Tecnalia in Spain, University of Stuttgart in Germany, and certification initiated at KIT/VAKA in 2025. One answer needed, see Working.
"What about fire?"
Motion already has satisfactory fire test results with Talgo (deck p.25), which shows the material passing sector-specific fire testing.
"Can I see it in a building?"
What exists: the 10m prototype standing at Gropyus, the Goldbeck test programme, and delivered Skin installations (B&O flagship, CMPC lobby, NS trains).
Cost and business model
"What does EUR 230/m2 actually include?"
The most repeated and most interrogated number (Erreditre: "building cost or just the floor?"). The answer: total structural material cost, validated by str.ucture, excluding foundations, transport and installation-speed savings, which makes it conservative. Quote Core as the 200 to 250 EUR/m2 range and the collision with Skin's catalogue price disappears.
Investors and structural engineers, reliably."Who builds and pays for the plant?"
Tier 2 supplier to the timber industry, in regional joint ventures partners carry the plant capex (Pfeifer, FINSA and CMPC back this). Integration into an existing CLT line is an end-of-line upgrade under 250k EUR, not a new factory. Answer it before it gets asked.
Investors, as a standing business-model question."How big is the market, really?"
The sourced pair: about EUR 1B CLT market expanding into a EUR 112B reinforced concrete slab market (Business Research Insights 2024; Virtue Market Research 2024, via memorandum p.33). The 150B figure in the business plan and deck has no source attached, so 112B is the defensible number until the sizing gets rebuilt bottom-up from the launch markets.
Investors; the number set in the wild is currently inconsistent.Adoption and demand
"Are the LOIs binding offtakes?"
The LOIs with Goldbeck, Gropyus, Renggli, VINCI and JM are expressions of interest with testing underway, not offtakes. The Series A objective in the deck: at least EUR 2M in offtake agreements (p.35). Deal-size reference: a single client can plausibly do a EUR 2M offtake.
Diligence-stage investors.Three dials, nine lines. The orange dot marks where the communication stands today, the green dot where we take it. The note under a line names the main change that gets it there.
Empathy
Content
Delivery
Document review
to-dos per document; the rules and the wording live in the other tabs
Sales materials medium improvement potentialCore catalogue · Skin materials
Across all sales materials
- Open with the customer's problem. The catalogue opens with "sustainable future", then "About Strong by Form", then the technology. Talk to the customer first; the company comes later.
- Split every benefits page by audience: partner side and demand side. The lists to copy from are in the Value propositions tab.
- Get externals saying it. A named Gropyus voice on the assembly beats Strong by Form saying it about itself. Same for B&O or CMPC on Skin.
Core catalogue
- Cut the CLT comparisons. The frequency alone makes Core read as a CLT competitor. The competition is concrete.
- Add the missing demand-side arguments: 10 to 12 m spans for data centres, the weight cascade into foundations, columns and beams, over 50% less embodied carbon against tightening regulation, airliftable panels for defense, humanitarian and emergency infrastructure.
Skin materials
- Say the removable fasteners early. Installation, removal, reuse, LEED and BREEAM: people consistently miss the feature, so it can't sit in the small print.
- Show the partner network: collections co-developed with FINSA, distribution through WVH and LAclave, partner logos, the map of where panels already hang.
- Add the three-lines overview here too. Skin still gets mistaken for the whole company.
Investor materials high improvement potentialmemorandum · investor deck · business plans
The story
- Lead the cost story with weight. 80% less weight cascades into smaller foundations, thinner columns, lighter beams, less transport and less total material. Cost parity comes after, as the consequence. Right now this argument is lost in the memorandum.
- One overview for the three lines. Core, Skin and Motion side by side, each with a visual and its explicit purpose. "Three verticals, focus on Core" currently reads as one product plus two side projects; the overview has to show they work together. Belongs in the deck too.
- Tell Skin as the execution case study, not as a second revenue story: product developed, distribution built, references won, collections co-developed with investor FINSA. The playbook Core needs, already run once. A short anecdote making this point would carry it.
- Spell out the go-to-market order: what happens first, in which niche, and what the panel-sales stage sells and where. The stages are listed, the sequence and focus are not.
- Anecdotes against the adoption fear: the Gropyus assembly, the Goldbeck stability result, told by named people on their side. One for partners, one for construction companies.
- Regulation and labour as tailwind: CSRD, RE 2020, EU taxonomy, low-carbon rules becoming mandatory, plus the labour shortage paired with 20 to 50% faster construction. Drop the industry-misery stats: 44% of projects ending in losses argues against the industry's capacity to adopt anything.
- Frame resource efficiency as partner economics. Less wood and greater forest resilience matter because the partner's resource base becomes worth more, not as a sustainability point.
- Contextualise the Skin break-even: "break-even after X years on the market" says more than the year alone.
Numbers and slides
- Replace the comparison on memorandum slide 20. Subjective ratings for faster construction, cost and strength take away from the point. A plain table with numbers for cost, construction time, strength per unit of weight and resource efficiency, fewer dimensions, does more.
- Rebuild the market sizing bottom-up from the launch markets instead of the global sustainable-construction-materials figure.
- One technology story, organised by product line. The linear-based vs strand-based split confuses; Core, Skin and Motion carry the structure.
- Settle the partner-production question first. Whether partners eventually produce W-cores themselves changes the business-model slide and the "who builds the plant" answer. Sits as a question in Working.
- Apply the terminology and number fixes collected in the Terminology and Stats tabs in the next revision of the memo and deck.
Process
- Map the new deck in Miro first: structure and visuals per slide, before any slide gets rebuilt.
Website high improvement potentialnot reviewed yet
- Not reviewed yet. This section fills once the website review happens.
- The assessment so far: high improvement potential. The likely fix is updated text and a sharper narrative, not a redesign.
Shared workspace
All working files live in the shared Drive; the calendar books a working session with Marina.
Scope
What the proposal covers, and what has landed on top of it. Anything outside the proposal goes on the second list, so scope stays visible for both of us.
| Deliverable | Scope | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Pitch deck rebuild | 4 iteration rounds, investor deck (40 slides) and the long deck (36 slides). This guidebook is the working base; deck structure goes to Miro next. | Ongoing |
| Company narrative and comms strategy | 3 iteration rounds, written as a document first, then adapted into slides | To be done |
| Founder positioning | 3 iteration rounds, into the second-close window | To be done |
| Investor podcast placement | monthly retainer, not agreed yet | Waiting |
| In-person intensive, Berlin | included, beginning of September | To be done |
Open questions
Decisions to take
Until these are decided, parts of the story stay inconsistent no matter how good the copy is.
| Decision | Options and my take |
|---|---|
| The brand layers: does Woodflow survive?i💬 comment | Today it's Strong by Form, then Woodflow, then Core, Skin and Motion. "Strong by Core", "Strong by Skin" and "Strong by Motion" would link every product back to the company and remove a layer. I'd seriously consider dropping the Woodflow intermediate brand. |
| The Google test makes it concrete: Google built Google Docs and Google Sheets, and would never have built "Hangouts Docs" and "Hangouts Sheets". The technology doesn't need its own brand name to be legit. | |
| Reconsider the "Motion" name💬 comment | Core and Skin are parts of a thing, Motion is a use case. Will these applications truly only be used in mobility? Could it make sense to call this Strong by Shell, Strong by Curve, Strong by Shape, Strong by Parts. |
| The two 230s💬 comment | Quote Core as the validated 200 to 250 EUR/m2 range so it stops colliding with Skin's 230 EUR/m2 catalogue price. |
| Motion vs. Skin💬 comment | Move the Motion cladding examples into Skin. The mobility examples could actually help show Skin's functional side, which the materials don't get across today. |
| One spelling for the products💬 comment | "Woodflow-core", "Woodflow CORE" and "W-CORE" coexist across the deck, memo and Motion doc. Pick one convention, apply it in the next revision of every asset. |
Protocol what has been delivered so far
| Date | What |
|---|---|
| 03.08 | Proposal agreed: pitch deck rebuild, company narrative and comms strategy, founder positioning, podcast placement as a retainer, Berlin intensive included. Deck first, it doubles as onboarding. |
| 10.08 | Onboarding requests sent: the materials list for the document review. |
| 16.08 | Onboarding materials received: the filled communications analysis and both business plans, reviewed together with the memorandum and the Skin catalogue. |
| 16.08 | Delivered: this guidebook, built from the full document review. |
| 16.08 | Delivered: competitor landscape, first version. |
| 17.08 | Delivered: the communications analysis and the document review, now the Analysis tab of this guidebook. |