Almost every feasibility study concludes that the project is feasible. That is the genre's defect: it is commissioned by somebody who has decided, and read by a bank that needs a document. Eighty pages arrive, "viable" is the verdict, and nobody can say afterwards which number the whole thing was resting on.
A study is worth something only if it could have concluded the opposite, and if the reader can find the assumptions that decide the outcome. Every project has two or three. A restaurant is a bet on covers per night and rent as a share of revenue. A factory is a bet on utilisation and input price. An app is a bet on acquisition cost against retention. The rest is scenery.
So the output is inverted. Not "the project returns 24%" — a figure carried to two decimals from inputs that were guesses — but "this works while food cost stays under 31% and Tuesdays fill 40 covers; here is what happens at 35% and 30; and here is which of the two to go and measure before signing anything."
It covers the whole structure a lender or a partner expects — market, operations, technical, legal, organisation, financials, risk — but every section is written to be falsifiable, and it separates the figures you supplied from the ones it assumed and from the ones nobody has yet.
It gives no recommendation to invest, no valuation, and no financial or legal advice.
Because every figure names where it came from.
Found in an afternoon rather than in the second year of trading.
Including the decision not to proceed.
Every project rests on a handful of assumptions and eighty pages of scenery. It names which is which before anything else.
How far each assumption can move before the answer flips. A return carried to two decimals from guesses is theatre.
Conservative, expected and optimistic — with what changes between them stated, not just the totals.
Most studies blend all three into one confident column. Knowing which is which is the difference between a study and a brochure.
The one or two facts worth the cost of finding out before committing, ranked by how much they move the outcome.
And states the conditions under which it would. A study that cannot fail is not a study.
Why Professional Services in particular. Almost every study concludes the project is feasible. One that names the two numbers deciding it, and what happens when they move, is a different document entirely.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Feasibility Study Agent has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"project": "A 40-cover restaurant in a mid-size city centre",
"currency": "USD",
"capitalAvailable": 180000
}{
"cases": [
{
"name": "conservative",
"worksOrNot": "Does not work with the capital available. It runs out in month eleven, which is before it fails on trading — the shortfall is cash timing, not the business.",
"whatChanges": "29 midweek covers, food cost at 34%, three months to reach steady trade instead of two.",
"peakCashNeed": 214000,
"monthsToBreakEven": 19
},
{
"name": "expected",
"worksOrNot": "Works, with 13% of the capital available as headroom. That is thin for a first year.",
"whatChanges": "34 midweek covers, food cost at 31%.",
"peakCashNeed": 156000,
"monthsToBreakEven": 11
}
],
"risks": [
{
"risk": "Midweek trade does not develop",
"effect": "The single largest exposure. Below 29 covers the project does not reach break-even at any point in the horizon.",
"earlyWarning": "Midweek covers in weeks 6 to 10, once opening curiosity has passed."
}
],
"market": "…",
"escalate": true,
"technical": "…",
"conclusion": "Feasible in the expected case and not in the conservative one, and the gap between them is a single number nobody has measured: midweek covers. This is not a decision to make on the model — it is a decision to make after four evenings of counting.",
"disclaimer": "Assumptions and break-evens from the figures supplied. This is not investment, legal or financial advice, contains no valuation, and is not a recommendation to proceed. Figures marked assumed were not researched or supplied.",
"operations": "…",
"measureFirst": [
{
"question": "What do comparable midweek covers actually run at in this location?",
"howToFindOut": "Count arrivals at two comparable venues within 400m on four midweek evenings. Two evenings of somebody's time, against a decision worth $180,000.",
"whyItMatters": "It is the assumption with the least headroom and the one the whole model rests on."
}
],
"organisation": "…",
"stillUnknown": [
"Local midweek demand",
"Extraction consent status for the site"
],
"assumedFigures": [
"Covers per night — assumed from venue size and typical turn, not from any measurement of this location.",
"Food cost percentage — assumed at a common range for this format."
],
"capitalRequired": 156000,
"suppliedFigures": [
"Rent",
"Capital available",
"Site size"
],
"whatThisRestsOn": [
{
"source": "assumed",
"headroom": "15% — the thinnest margin in the model.",
"assumption": "Covers on a Tuesday and Wednesday",
"assumedValue": "34 per night",
"whyItDecides": "Weekends fill in almost any plausible case and are not what decides this. Midweek carries the fixed costs, and the difference between 29 and 34 covers is the difference between the project working and not.",
"breakEvenValue": "29 per night"
},
{
"source": "supplied",
"headroom": "Comfortable at the rent supplied — but the lease term matters more than the rate.",
"assumption": "Rent as a share of revenue",
"assumedValue": "9%",
"whyItDecides": "It is the only cost here that cannot be reduced once signed.",
"breakEvenValue": "13%"
}
],
"escalationReason": "The conservative case fails on cash before it fails on trading, and the deciding assumption has never been measured.",
"legalAndRegulatory": [
"Food business registration, a premises licence if alcohol is served, and an extraction consent that is frequently the item that delays opening. Whether each applies to your site is a question for your local authority, not for this study."
],
"rampAndSeasonality": "The model reaches steady trade in month three. Peak cash need is month eight, not month one — a project that works at steady state and runs out in month eight is not feasible, and an annual average hides exactly that.",
"conditionsUnderWhichItWorks": [
"Midweek covers hold above 29.",
"Food cost stays under 33%.",
"At least $30,000 of the capital is held back for the month-eight cash trough rather than spent on fit-out."
]
}No integrations required.
Before a lease, a licence or a loan is signed.
The structure a lender expects, with the assumptions exposed.
Whether the existing business can carry it.
The same falsifiable treatment applied to both.
Where the assumptions have to be stated to be assessed.
$59/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
No. It states what would have to be true and how far each assumption can move before the answer changes. Recommending an investment is regulated financial advice in most places and requires a licensed adviser who knows your circumstances.
From what you supply. Anything it assumes is labelled as an assumption with the reasoning, and anything neither supplied nor safely assumable is listed as unknown rather than filled in. It does not invent market sizes or benchmark costs and present them as findings.
No. It produces no valuation, no multiple and no share price. Those are opinions with legal weight and they belong to a qualified professional.
Yes, and it will say so plainly. With a thin brief it produces the structure, the assumptions that would decide it, and the list of what to establish — which is genuinely useful and is not the same as a study.
It flags the permits, licences and regulatory questions a project of that type usually faces, so none is a surprise. It does not give legal advice or confirm that any specific requirement applies to you.
Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agentRead-only by design. This agent has no path to sending, spending, publishing or committing anything. Where that limit is the product, removing it would remove the reason to trust the output.