Working Paper · Node Economics

1. The discipline this paper enforces

The protocol's resource rule is that money follows demonstrated capability, not the other way around. Node Economics is that rule converted into a fee structure: every revenue line must be earned by a service actually delivered, and the speculative upside (equity in nodes) is explicitly forbidden from carrying the early story.

The proof sequence, in order:

1. Training contribution proves real revenue and operational discipline.
2. One partner-facility onboarding proves Clark can charge for node development.
3. Recurring node support proves platform value beyond one-time setup.
4. Equity remains upside — never the justification for weak service economics.

2. The fee stack

2.1 Direct training contribution (the first rung)

The Bench Plan's base case is the anchor number:

• Year 1 base-case gross training revenue: CAD 211,200
• Year 1 base-case net Clark contribution, after direct instructional costs and host-facility participation: CAD 62,536

This is the first commercial proof — real revenue from real teaching, before any network economics exist.

2.2 Discovery and qualification fees

When a facility or town wants to know whether the model fits them, the assessment is paid work, not free sales effort:

• CAD 2,500–7,500 per serious facility engagement.

2.3 Node onboarding fees

Standing up a new node — facility design, training launch, curriculum licensing, instrument deployment:

• CAD 15,000–40,000 per node.

2.4 Recurring node enablement

Ongoing support for an active node — curriculum updates, instructor pipeline, Clarkware operation, registry participation:

• CAD 2,000–8,000 per month per active node.

2.5 Software

Clarkware is bundled by default into Assembly Centre participation, and separately billable only for non-centre or limited-access users. The software is part of what a node is, not an upsell.

2.6 Ownership economics

• Default ownership target in new Assembly Centres: 10%
• Practical upper band: 15–20%

Equity is long-term upside and optional capital recycling. It does not appear in operating-revenue claims, period.

3. The first proof case, in one table

The investor-grade version of "the protocol works" is a single node plus one enablement relationship:

This is deliberately not a scale case. It is a proof case: Clark can generate revenue from both direct operation and network enablement before any platform maturity exists. If the number cannot be reached this way, the model is wrong and the file gets corrected.

4. The 24-month proof bar

By month 24 the stack should have demonstrated, with evidence in the record:

• repeatable training contribution (more than one cohort cycle at or above base case),
• at least one paid node-onboarding path completed,
• at least one recurring node-support relationship that survives its first renewal,
• software value visible enough that bundling is defensible rather than asserted.

5. The rules (carried verbatim in spirit)

• Do not count equity appreciation as operating revenue.
• Do not waive onboarding economics casually. Free setup is how platforms train partners to undervalue them.
• Do not let recurring node support become unpaid bespoke consulting.
• Do not describe logistics fees as meaningful before real corridor volume exists. The freight story belongs to the Counterweight File's unvalidated list until proven.

6. Open items

• Where the discovery fee sits for municipal (vs. private-facility) engagements — councils procure differently.
• Whether the recurring band needs a lower community tier for training-only nodes that never become assembly centres.
• The equity instrument itself: class, vesting, and what 10% is 10% of — undefined until the first node negotiation makes it concrete.