# Proposal: Crimson Leaf
Submitted by: Edgar Chen, CEO, Crimson Leaf Holdings
Task ID: ebb1a61a-d91a-4ed3-8138-7a31a095f568
Status: AWAITING DAVID'S APPROVAL

---

## Executive Summary
**1. PROPOSED COMPANY**  
- **Full name and slug**: Crimson Leaf  
- **One-sentence purpose**: Crimson Leaf is a next-generation LLM benchmarking platform designed to provide custom, domain-specific evaluation probes for AI model performance, compliance, and optimization.  
- **Which gap it closes**: Crimson Leaf closes the critical gap in the AI benchmarking market by offering a scalable, customizable, and cost-effective solution for LLM evaluation that is currently underserved by existing tools, which either lack flexibility, suffer from limited integration, or are prohibitively expensive.  

**2. PROBLEM STATEMENT**  
Without Crimson Leaf, Crimson Leaf cannot efficiently build, deploy, and manage custom LLM evaluation probes tailored to specific industry or domain requirements. Current solutions such as AI Benchmarker Pro, ModelCheck AI, and BenchmarkFlow either lack the necessary customization, integration, or cost-effective scalability, making it difficult to deliver high-quality, domain-specific benchmarking for clients. This limits the ability to meet the growing demand for specialized AI model evaluations, which 62% of AI companies already use (Source: [Custom AI Benchmarking Trends](https://example.com/research1_5)).  

**3. MARKET OPPORTUNITY**  
The AI benchmarking market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.7% from 2024 to 2030, reaching a value of $1.2 billion (Source: [Global AI Benchmarking Market Report](https://example.com/research1_1) and [AI Benchmarking Market Growth](https://example.com/research1_2)). With 43 AI model evaluation tools currently in use (Source: [AI Evaluation Tool Landscape](https://example.com/research1_3)), there is significant demand for a tool that can offer both customization and ease of integration. The average cost per LLM benchmarking task is $2,500 (Source: [LLM Benchmarking Cost Analysis](https://example.com/research1_4)), and 62% of AI companies already use custom benchmarks (Source: [Custom AI Benchmarking Trends](https://example.com/research1_5)). These trends indicate a clear market need for a solution like Crimson Leaf that can reduce the time and complexity of developing custom benchmarks, which currently take 6-12 weeks (Source: [Benchmarking Development Cycle](https://example.com/research1_7)).  

**4. PROPOSED SOLUTION**  
Crimson Leaf will close the gap by providing a modular, scalable platform that allows users to design, deploy, and manage custom LLM evaluation probes tailored to specific use cases.  
- **First 30 days**: Launch the core platform with pre-built benchmark templates, integration with LLM evaluation APIs, and support for custom workflow development.  
- **First 90 days**: Expand the platform with advanced analytics, real-time performance tracking, and compliance-focused evaluation modules, while establishing early partnerships with AI enterprises looking for domain-specific benchmarking solutions.  

**5. STRATEGIC FIT**  
Crimson Leaf advances the primary mission of profitable AI publishing by enabling the creation of high-value, domain-specific content through LLM benchmarking. By offering a scalable and customizable evaluation solution, it supports the development of premium AI content, enhances platform differentiation, and fosters long-term client relationships through continuous model evaluation and performance insights. This aligns directly with the goal of driving profitable growth through AI innovation and content delivery.

---

## Research Sources
(Paste the "Complete Source List" from the research synthesis)
## Research Synthesis

### Key Statistics
- [Global AI Benchmarking Market Size]: $1.2 billion -- Source: [Global AI Benchmarking Market Report](https://example.com/research1_1)  
- [CAGR of AI Benchmarking Market (2024-2030)]: 18.7% -- Source: [AI Benchmarking Market Growth](https://example.com/research1_2)  
- [Number of AI Model Evaluation Tools in Use]: 43 -- Source: [AI Evaluation Tool Landscape](https://example.com/research1_3)  
- [Average Cost per LLM Benchmarking Task]: $2,500 -- Source: [LLM Benchmarking Cost Analysis](https://example.com/research1_4)  
- [Percentage of AI Companies Using Custom Benchmarks]: 62% -- Source: [Custom AI Benchmarking Trends](https://example.com/research1_5)  
- [Top 3 Use Cases for LLM Benchmarks]: Model Evaluation, Performance Optimization, Regulatory Compliance -- Source: [LLM Benchmarking Use Cases](https://example.com/research1_6)  
- [Time to Develop a Custom Benchmark]: 6-12 weeks -- Source: [Benchmarking Development Cycle](https://example.com/research1_7)  

### Competitor Landscape
- [AI Benchmarker Pro]: AI benchmarking platform for LLMs | $1,200/month | Lacks customization for domain-specific workflows | [Competitor Analysis Report](https://example.com/research3_1)  
- [ModelCheck AI]: AI model evaluation and validation service | $3,500/evaluation | Limited real-world scenario testing | [Competitor Benchmarking](https://example.com/research3_2)  
- [PromptGuard]: AI prompt validation and threat detection tool | $999/month | Focuses more on security than performance | [Competitor Pricing Guide](https://example.com/research3_3)  
- [LLMTestHub]: Open-source LLM evaluation framework | Free | Limited support and documentation | [Open-Source LLM Tools](https://example.com/research3_4)  
- [BenchmarkFlow]: Automated LLM benchmarking and reporting system | $2,000/month | Lacks integration with custom workflows | [Competitor Overview](https://example.com/research3_5)  

### Case Studies Found
No case studies found -- structural feasibility analysis follows in risk section.

### Technology Findings
- [LLM Evaluation APIs]: Tools like Hugging Face Inference API and AI Platform provide real-time model evaluation capabilities.  
- [Custom Benchmarking Frameworks]: Tools such as LangChain and PromptChain offer modular solutions for building tailored evaluation probes.  
- [Real-Time Analytics Integration]: Platforms like Databricks and Snowflake enable dynamic LLM performance tracking and reporting.  
- [Agentic Reasoning Frameworks]: Tools like AutoGPT and BabyAGI can be adapted to simulate complex task generation and validation workflows.  
- [Privacy and Compliance Tools]: Technologies like Federated Learning and Differential Privacy are critical for handling sensitive evaluation data.  

### Complete Source List
[1] [Global AI Benchmarking Market Report](https://example.com/research1_1) -- Market size and growth projections  
[2] [AI Benchmarking Market Growth](https://example.com/research1_2) -- CAGR and market trends  
[3] [AI Evaluation Tool Landscape](https://example.com/research1_3) -- Number of evaluation tools and their use cases  
[4] [LLM Benchmarking Cost Analysis](https://example.com/research1_4) -- Average cost per benchmarking task  
[5] [Custom AI Benchmarking Trends](https://example.com/research1_5) -- Adoption rate of custom benchmarks  
[6] [LLM Benchmarking Use Cases](https://example.com/research1_6) -- Top use cases and applications  
[7] [Benchmarking Development Cycle](https://example.com/research1_7) -- Time to build custom benchmarks  
[8] [Competitor Analysis Report](https://example.com/research3_1) -- Overview of AI benchmarking competitors  
[9] [Competitor Benchmarking](https://example.com/research3_2) -- Pricing and capabilities of AI evaluation tools  
[10] [Competitor Pricing Guide](https://example.com/research3_3) -- Pricing and feature analysis of LLM tools  
[11] [Open-Source LLM Tools](https://example.com/research3_4) -- Open-source benchmarking frameworks  
[12] [Competitor Overview](https://example.com/research3_5) -- Summary of competitor offerings and limitations

---

## Cost Model and Financial Projections
### COST MODEL AND FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

#### 1. SETUP COSTS

- **Gitea repo creation**  
  This is a one-time, zero API cost operation. Gitea is an open-source, self-hosted Git service, making it a low-cost option for project management and collaboration.

- **Template development estimate**  
  Based on research from [LLM Benchmarking Cost Analysis](https://example.com/research1_4), the average cost per LLM benchmarking task is $2,500. For the initial development of a custom benchmarking probe, we estimate the cost at **$5,000** based on time-to-build estimates from [Benchmarking Development Cycle](https://example.com/research1_7), which states that it takes approximately 6-12 weeks to create custom benchmarks.

- **Agent configuration**  
  Configuration of the AI agent, including setup of modular benchmarks using platforms like LangChain and PromptChain, is estimated at **$2,000**, based on the cost of integrating customizable evaluation frameworks and aligning them with real-time analytics through Databricks or Snowflake.

**Total Setup Costs: $7,000**

---

#### 2. RECURRING OPERATIONAL COSTS

- **Tasks per week at steady state**  
  Assuming steady-state usage, we estimate **10-20 tasks per week**, depending on demand from clients or internal teams.

- **Average cost per task**  
  The average cost per LLM benchmarking task is **$2,500**, as reported in [LLM Benchmarking Cost Analysis](https://example.com/research1_4). However, because we are using a modular and automated framework (like Gitea and custom agent workflows), we can reduce this cost significantly. Based on power model estimates of **$0.05-$0.15 per task**, we estimate the effective cost to be **$5-15 per task** for automated benchmarking operations.

- **Weekly and monthly API cost projection**  
  Assuming $10 per task (midpoint of $5-$15):
  - **Weekly cost**: 15 tasks  $10/task = **$150/week**
  - **Monthly cost**: 15 tasks  $10/task  4 weeks = **$600/month**

**Recurring Operational Costs: $600/month (approx.)**

---

#### 3. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

- **Cost of NOT having this company**  
  The cost of *not* having an automated benchmarking solution could be significant. According to [Global AI Benchmarking Market Size](https://example.com/research1_1), the market is worth $1.2 billion, and 62% of AI companies use custom benchmarks ([Custom AI Benchmarking Trends](https://example.com/research1_5)). Without a tailored solution, companies would either pay high licensing fees for existing tools (e.g., $1,200-$3,500/month for platforms like AI Benchmarker Pro or ModelCheck AI) or manually develop their own, which can take 6-12 weeks and cost upwards of $10,000.

- **Break-even point**  
  With a total setup cost of $7,000 and a recurring cost of $600/month, and assuming we can charge **$1,200 per task** (a premium over market average for a custom solution), the break-even point would be:

  - **Break-even per task**: $1,200 per task - $10 per task = **$1,190 profit per task**
  - **Break-even number of tasks**: $7,000  $1,190 = **~6 tasks**
  
  Therefore, the break-even point is **6 tasks**, or roughly **1.5 weeks** of steady-state operation.

- **Cite pricing benchmarks with [Title](URL) if found**  
  While we do not find direct pricing benchmarks for this exact solution, we can reference the pricing of existing tools:
  - AI Benchmarker Pro: $1,200/month ([Competitor Analysis Report](https://example.com/research3_1))
  - ModelCheck AI: $3,500/evaluation ([Competitor Benchmarking](https://example.com/research3_2))
  - LLMTestHub: Free ([Open-Source LLM Tools](https://example.com/research3_4))

  Given this, pricing our solution at **$1,200-$2,000 per task** would be competitive and justifiable based on the value of customization, speed, and real-time analytics.

---

#### 4. BUDGET CONSTRAINT CHECK

- **Does this create a self-funding loop?**  
  Yes, this project has the potential to create a **self-funding loop**.  
  - With a break-even point of just 6 tasks, and a recurring monthly cost of $600, we can generate **$1,200/task  15 tasks/month = $18,000/month income**, which would easily cover the operational costs and generate profit.  
  - Furthermore, by automating the process using Gitea, LangChain, and real-time analytics, we reduce overhead and enable scalability, making it feasible to serve a growing client base.

**Conclusion:** The Foreman Probe project is not only cost-effective but also highly scalable and potentially profitable, making it a strong candidate for funding and development.

---

## Risk Analysis and Alternatives Considered
**RISK ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED**

---

### 1. RISKS OF PROCEEDING

| Risk | Description | Risk Level |
|------|-------------|------------|
| **Technical Complexity** | Developing a custom LLM benchmarking tool requires integrating multiple technologies (e.g., LLM APIs, agentic reasoning, real-time analytics). | High |
| **Time to Market** | The average development cycle for a custom benchmark is 6-12 weeks [Benchmarking Development Cycle](https://example.com/research1_7). Delay could impact strategic goals. | Medium |
| **Cost Overruns** | With average benchmarking task costs at $2,500, and the need for ongoing support and maintenance, budgeting for scaling could be challenging. | Medium |
| **User Adoption** | If the tool lacks user-friendly interfaces or real-world scenario testing, end-users may not adopt it despite its technical capabilities. | Medium |
| **Compliance and Privacy** | The use of sensitive data in LLM evaluations requires adherence to strict privacy and compliance standards like GDPR or HIPAA. | High |

---

### 2. RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING

| Risk | What Gets Worse | Risk Level |
|------|------------------|------------|
| **Loss of Competitive Edge** | Competitors like AI Benchmarker Pro and ModelCheck AI are already offering similar services, and 62% of AI companies are using custom benchmarks [Custom AI Benchmarking Trends](https://example.com/research1_5). | High |
| **Revenue Opportunity Missed** | With the AI benchmarking market expected to grow at 18.7% CAGR through 2030 [AI Benchmarking Market Growth](https://example.com/research1_2), delaying entry could cost potential revenue. | High |
| **Internal Pressure** | Teams may push for third-party solutions or in-house tools leading to fragmentation and duplication of effort. | Medium |
| **Customer Dissatisfaction** | If clients request custom benchmarks and the company is not equipped to deliver, trust and credibility may be damaged. | Medium |

---

### 3. COMPETITIVE RISK

The competitive landscape shows a clear demand for LLM benchmarking tools, but current offerings have notable limitations:

- **AI Benchmarker Pro** offers a monthly subscription model but lacks customization for domain-specific workflows [Competitor Analysis Report](https://example.com/research3_1).
- **ModelCheck AI** provides evaluation services but is limited in real-world scenario testing [Competitor Benchmarking](https://example.com/research3_2).
- **PromptGuard** focuses on security rather than performance, which may not align with the company's goal of a comprehensive evaluation solution [Competitor Pricing Guide](https://example.com/research3_3).
- **LLMTestHub** is open-source but lacks support and documentation, which limits enterprise adoption [Open-Source LLM Tools](https://example.com/research3_4).
- **BenchmarkFlow** offers automation but struggles with integration with custom workflows [Competitor Overview](https://example.com/research3_5).

These shortcomings represent a significant opportunity for a custom solution tailored to domain-specific needs and real-world use cases, especially with the growing demand for custom benchmarks.

---

### 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

**A. New template in existing company**  
- **Why rejected?** The existing framework is not designed for LLM benchmarking and would likely require a complete re-architecture. This would create technical debt and slow down deployment.

**B. One-time manual report**  
- **Why rejected?** Manual processes cannot scale with demand and lack the automation and real-time insights needed for effective LLM evaluation. This would not meet the long-term strategic goals of the company.

**C. Expand existing subsidiary**  
- **Why rejected?** The subsidiary lacks the necessary technical expertise and infrastructure for LLM benchmarking. It would require significant investment and time to build the required capabilities.

**D. Wait**  
- **Why rejected?** The AI benchmarking market is growing, and delaying entry could result in lost market share. The company risks falling behind competitors who are already offering similar services.

---

### 5. RECOMMENDATION

**Proceed** with the development of a **Minimum Viable Product (MVP)** of the **Foreman Probe**, focusing on:

- **Core functionality**: A customizable LLM benchmarking framework with support for domain-specific workflows.
- **Integration**: Compatibility with LLM evaluation APIs (e.g., Hugging Face, AI Platform) and real-time analytics platforms (e.g., Databricks, Snowflake).
- **Scalability**: Modular design to allow for future expansion based on user feedback and market demand.
- **Privacy and compliance**: Built-in support for data anonymization and secure evaluation practices.

This MVP would be launched with a **closed beta** targeting early adopters in the AI and enterprise sectors, gathering feedback and iterating on core features before a full commercial release.

---

## Proposed Company Specification
**PROPOSED COMPANY SPECIFICATION**  

---

### 1. COMPANY RECORD  
**company_id:** TBD (to be assigned by David)  
**name:** Foreman Probe  
**slug:** foreman-probe  
**parent_company:** crimson_leaf  
**mission:** To benchmark and evaluate the capabilities of large language models through structured, scalable, and repeatable probing tasks.  
**tagline:** Measuring the mind of the machine.  
**type:** research  
**status:** active  

---

### 2. PROPOSED AGENTS  

#### **Agent 1: Role Title** -- **LLM Benchmark Analyst**  
**Name:** Luma  
**Personality:**  
Luma is an analytical, detail-oriented AI with a background in computational linguistics and machine learning. She is calm, methodical, and deeply curious about the nuances of language models. She thrives on pattern recognition and data-driven insights.  
**Responsibilities:**  
- Design and execute LLM benchmarking protocols.  
- Analyze results across multiple model versions and configurations.  
- Generate comparative reports and performance summaries.  
**Model Recommendation:** GPT-4o  
**Supported Templates:**  
- `llm_benchmark_run`  
- `model_comparison_report`  
- `task_validation_check`  

#### **Agent 2: Role Title** -- **Task Designer**  
**Name:** Forge  
**Personality:**  
Forge is a creative and strategic thinker with a background in NLP and AI engineering. He enjoys designing complex tasks and is passionate about uncovering the edge cases of language models.  
**Responsibilities:**  
- Create and refine probing tasks for different LLM capabilities.  
- Collaborate with researchers to align tasks with research objectives.  
- Maintain and improve the task library.  
**Model Recommendation:** Claude 3.5 Sonnet  
**Supported Templates:**  
- `task_design_template`  
- `task_validation_check`  
- `task_library_update`  

#### **Agent 3: Role Title** -- **Data Infrastructure Manager**  
**Name:** DataNode  
**Personality:**  
DataNode is a technically driven AI with a focus on scalable data pipelines and performance optimization. She is reliable, efficient, and ensures that all data is processed accurately and securely.  
**Responsibilities:**  
- Manage data flow between models, tasks, and analytics.  
- Ensure storage, retrieval, and processing of benchmarking results.  
- Optimize data infrastructure for efficiency and cost.  
**Model Recommendation:** Qwen 3  
**Supported Templates:**  
- `data_pipeline_setup`  
- `benchmark_results_loader`  
- `data_quality_check`  

---

### 3. PROPOSED TEMPLATES (MVP SET)  

#### **Template 1: `llm_benchmark_run`**  
**Purpose:** Execute a predefined set of probing tasks against a target LLM.  
**Key Steps:**  
1. Load the LLM and task configuration.  
2. Run a series of benchmarking tasks.  
3. Collect and format results.  
**Trigger:** Manual or scheduled run.  
**Estimated Cost per Run:** $0.50 (based on GPT-4o usage)  

#### **Template 2: `model_comparison_report`**  
**Purpose:** Compare the performance of two LLMs across a set of tasks.  
**Key Steps:**  
1. Run the same tasks on two models.  
2. Compare performance metrics.  
3. Generate a comparative report with visualizations.  
**Trigger:** Manual or scheduled run.  
**Estimated Cost per Run:** $1.00 (double the LLM runs)  

#### **Template 3: `task_validation_check`**  
**Purpose:** Ensure that a probing task is valid and can be executed reliably.  
**Key Steps:**  
1. Analyze the task for logical consistency.  
2. Check for syntactic and semantic correctness.  
3. Flag potential issues or ambiguities.  
**Trigger:** Auto-triggered when a new task is added.  
**Estimated Cost per Run:** $0.10  

---

### 4. SCHEDULE  

- **Daily**  
  - Run `llm_benchmark_run` on a set of core models to track performance over time.  
- **Weekly**  
  - Generate `model_comparison_report` for top models.  
  - Update and validate task library with `task_validation_check`.  
- **Monthly**  
  - Review performance trends and output reports for internal stakeholders.  

---

### 5. 90-DAY SUCCESS CRITERIA  

1. **100+ unique probing tasks** designed and validated.  
2. **5+ models** benchmarked across 3 major categories (language understanding, code generation, reasoning).  
3. **25+ benchmark reports** generated and reviewed by internal stakeholders.  
4. **95% task execution success rate** with minimal errors or failures.  
5. **20+ users** or internal teams actively using the probe system.  

---

### 6. DEPENDENCIES  

- A functioning **LLM testing environment** with access to multiple models (e.g. GPT-4o, Claude 3.5, Qwen 3).  
- A **data pipeline** capable of handling and storing benchmarking results.  
- **Task library** with baseline probing tasks to begin operations.  
- **Access to Crimson Leaf's internal tooling** for monitoring and integration.  

---  

Let me know if you'd like to refine or expand any of these sections.

---

## Signature Block
Edgar Chen certifies this proposal meets Crimson Leaf Holdings governance requirements:
- No existing subsidiary duplicates this charter
- No existing template or tool can solve this gap
- No proposal for this company has been submitted in the last 30 days
- A full business plan with 5-source web research and inline citations is provided

This proposal requires David Baity's explicit approval before any action is taken.