From f2d89e71170a5d5485f0feaaecf3b8847d2928a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Breazu Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2026 16:52:44 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?chore:=20=D0=B8=D0=BC=D0=BF=D0=BE=D1=80=D1=82?= =?UTF-8?q?=20=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=B9=D1=82=D0=B0=20breazu?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit refs breazu/breazu#1 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 --- .gitignore | 1 + README_DEPLOY.md | 19 + assets/app_icon_dark.svg | 27 ++ assets/app_icon_light.svg | 23 + assets/logo_with_name_darkbg.svg | 28 ++ assets/logo_with_name_lightbg.svg | 24 + assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg.svg | 23 + assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg_dark.svg | 23 + index.html | 477 +++++++++++++++++++ report.html | 355 ++++++++++++++ 10 files changed, 1000 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .gitignore create mode 100644 README_DEPLOY.md create mode 100644 assets/app_icon_dark.svg create mode 100644 assets/app_icon_light.svg create mode 100644 assets/logo_with_name_darkbg.svg create mode 100644 assets/logo_with_name_lightbg.svg create mode 100644 assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg.svg create mode 100644 assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg_dark.svg create mode 100644 index.html create mode 100644 report.html diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e43b0f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +.DS_Store diff --git a/README_DEPLOY.md b/README_DEPLOY.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f67aa68 --- /dev/null +++ b/README_DEPLOY.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +# breazu — статический сайт + +Папка целиком заливается на VPS, сборки нет. Состав: `index.html` (главная + hash-подстраницы +`#/buyers`, `#/vendors`, `#/inhouse`), `report.html` (демо-отчёт), `assets/` (бренд). + +nginx: + +```nginx +server { + listen 80; + server_name breazu.com; # заменить на реальный домен + root /var/www/breazu; + index index.html; + location / { try_files $uri $uri/ =404; } +} +``` + +Перед публикацией: заменить `hello@breazu.com` на реальный адрес (grep по обоим html), +подключить HTTPS (certbot). Бренд-ассеты — `assets/` (единственная копия; папки `УПАКОВКА` больше нет). diff --git a/assets/app_icon_dark.svg b/assets/app_icon_dark.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c6641e1 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/app_icon_dark.svg @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/assets/app_icon_light.svg b/assets/app_icon_light.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ae9c69 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/app_icon_light.svg @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/assets/logo_with_name_darkbg.svg b/assets/logo_with_name_darkbg.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d2eca40 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/logo_with_name_darkbg.svg @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/assets/logo_with_name_lightbg.svg b/assets/logo_with_name_lightbg.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b6d2af5 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/logo_with_name_lightbg.svg @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg.svg b/assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..292bad9 --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg.svg @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg_dark.svg b/assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg_dark.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bf74aae --- /dev/null +++ b/assets/logo_with_name_transparentbg_dark.svg @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/index.html b/index.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c69dfeb --- /dev/null +++ b/index.html @@ -0,0 +1,477 @@ + + + + + +breazu + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+
+

We read and write development estimates for a living.

+

A proposal is a financial instrument written by one side. breazu puts professional eyes on it — whichever side of the table you sit on. Never both sides of the same deal.

+
+ Who we work for + Read a sample audit +
+
+ +
+
Vendor estimate · as receivedaudited
+
+
Project management, phase 1164 h 140 h
+
F-01 · 24 phantom hours · €1,248 attributed to nobody
+
+
+
Warranty support“separate agreement”
+
F-04 · norm: 3 months included · hidden €14–18k
+
+
+
VerdictSIGN WITH AMENDMENTS
+
€84–112k exposure found on a €284,600 contract
+
+
From the sample audit report — synthetic proposal, real defect patterns.
+
+
+ +
+

Three chairs at the same table

+
+ + +

I’m buying development

+

Proposals on the desk differ by 2× and the contract reads smoothly. Audit before signature.

+ Proposal audit → + + + +

I’m selling development

+

Tenders keep coming and every proposal burns senior hours. We build the estimate and the document — you keep selling.

+ Proposal engineering → + + + +

We build in-house

+

The team says nine months; the board asks who checked. An independent estimate gives the internal number something to argue with.

+ Independent estimate → + +
+ +
+ + + Proposal A + + €121k + Proposal B + + €164k + Proposal C + + €243k + + 2× — why? + +
The same scope, priced by three vendors. The spread is not noise — it is scope cuts, padded hours and parked risk.
+
+
+ +
+

Services

+
+

Proposal audit

express €600–900 · 48h  |  full €2,500–4,000 · 5 days

Up to three proposals brought to one base: findings with euros at risk, amendment language, a verdict. For buyers →

+

Proposal engineering

from €1,900 per proposal · 3–5 days

Your proposal: line-by-line estimate, two pricing passes, defence notes for the pitch. For vendors →

+

Independent estimate

€2,000–3,500 · 5 days

A second number for scope your team priced — built blind, then reconciled line by line. For in-house teams →

+

Technical oversight

€1,500–2,500 / month

After signature: demo attendance, delivery vs. paid scope, change-request control.

+
+
+ +
+

One method behind every service

+
+

A · Craft invariants

Every estimate recomputed and tested against observed ranges: granularity, QA and management shares, rate grids.

+

B · Unit benchmarks

Hours per service, per integration, per app channel.

+

C · Both sides of the table

Eight years writing winning proposals; a benchmark built on 12+ proposals we’ve written or audited.

+
+
+
✓
+
+

The conflict rule

+

We never work for both sides of the same deal, never audit a proposal we wrote, and take no referral fees.

+
+
+
+ +
+

Send us the proposal on your desk.

+
+ Write to us — reply within one business day +
+
+
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + breazu + breazu + + Independent eyes on software estimates. + hello@breazu.com · EU +
+ + + + diff --git a/report.html b/report.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e3c4a27 --- /dev/null +++ b/report.html @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ + + + + + +breazu — Sample Audit + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ + breazu + breazu + +
INDEPENDENT PROPOSAL AUDIT
REF BZ-2026-DEMO
+
+
SAMPLE REPORT · SYNTHETIC PROPOSAL · NO REAL CLIENT DATA
+ +

Audit of a fixed-price development proposal: mobile ecosystem for a fitness chain

+

Prepared for the buyer’s side before contract signature. The vendor is anonymised; the proposal was written the way real proposals are written.

+ +
+
+
Client
NordFit Group (24 clubs)
+
Vendor
Vendor A (anonymised)
+
Contract value
€284,600
+
Timeline / items
7 mo · 96 lines
+
+
Object: fixed-price proposal for two mobile apps, a member web portal and migration from the incumbent club-management system. Documents received: proposal (PDF, 31 pp.), estimate (XLSX, 96 line items), draft contract.
+
+ +
+
+ SIGN WITH AMENDMENTS + Signable deal — after 7 contract amendments and a corrected estimate. +
+
+
€84–112k
probable exposure found: likely change requests, unpriced obligations, arithmetic
+
10
findings · 3 critical, 5 major, 2 for vendor clarification
+
€31,000/yr
cost of ownership the proposal does not mention
+
+
The price is within market range for the scope and the team is plausibly sized. Unamended, the contract allows the final cost to drift 30–40% above signature price through mechanisms already written into the text.
+
+ +
+
01

Findings index

+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
IDFindingSeverityExposure
F-01Estimate arithmetic: 4 line totals exceed the sum of role hoursCRITICAL€3,328
F-02“Fixed” price is not fixed: re-confirmation after discovery, no capCRITICALunbounded
F-03Stated goal depends on a paid option: data migration priced outside base scopeCRITICAL€19,800
F-04Warranty excluded from price (“separate agreement”)MAJOR€14–18k
F-05Dependency clause without a ceiling: any client-side delay shifts timeline “accordingly”MAJORschedule
F-06Acceptance undefined: no criteria, no review window, no dispute pathMAJORdisputes
F-07Quality contour cut: QA 9% of hours, project management 3.9%MAJORdelivery risk
F-0811 scope exclusions likely to return as change requestsMAJOR€47–71k
F-09Total cost of ownership absent: hosting, licences, stores, supportCLARIFY€31k/yr
F-10“Senior team” at blended €52/h — grades or margin, one of the twoCLARIFYquestion
+
+
+ +
+
02

Findings in detail

+ +
+
F-01The estimate does not add up — in the vendor’s favourCRITICAL
+
+

We recompute every line: hours per role × rate, against the line total. Four lines carry totals larger than the sum of their own role hours — 64 phantom hours in total.

+
Line 41 “Project management, phase 1”: role hours sum to 140 h, line total states 164 h — +24 h · €1,248 priced but not attributed to anyone’s work.
+

At the proposal’s blended rate the four lines add €3,328 of cost with no corresponding labour. In our practice this is rarely fraud — usually a spreadsheet edited late at night.

+
ACTIONVendor corrects the four lines or attributes the hours to named roles. A two-minute fix.
+
+
+ +
+
F-02A fixed price that reserves the right not to beCRITICAL
+
+

The cover says fixed price. Section 4.2 of the draft contract says otherwise:

+
“The final project cost shall be confirmed by the parties upon completion of the discovery phase.”
+

No ceiling, no formula, no walk-away right. You would be signing a number that becomes negotiable after you have already paid for discovery and committed the calendar — the moment your negotiating position is weakest.

+
ACTIONAmendment A1: post-discovery adjustment bounded to ±10% with itemised justification, and a no-cost exit if the vendor’s revised price exceeds the cap.
+
+
+ +
+
F-03The promised outcome depends on an option you have not boughtCRITICAL
+
+

Page 3 promises a “seamless transition for all existing members”. The mechanism for that promise — migration of member data, subscriptions and visit history — sits in the options table at €19,800, outside the base price.

+

Every proposal we audit gets this test: for each stated goal, where is the line that delivers it? A goal without a mechanism is the single most reliable predictor of a mid-project dispute.

+
ACTIONAmendment A5: migration moves into base scope at an agreed price, or the “seamless transition” language is removed and NordFit plans migration separately.
+
+
+ +
+
F-04Warranty is outside the priceMAJOR
+
+
“Warranty support shall be subject to a separate agreement.”
+

Market practice for this scope is 3 months of defect-fixing included, with a named response time for critical incidents. Here, the day after acceptance every defect is billable. On comparable builds, first-quarter defect flow prices at €14–18k — a hidden 5–6% on top of the contract.

+
ACTIONAmendment A2: 3-month warranty in price; defects of production severity fixed at no charge; critical response ≤ 4 business hours; “defect vs. new requirement” defined in the same clause.
+
+
+ +
+
F-05One late API and the calendar belongs to nobodyMAJOR
+
+
“Should client-side dependencies be delayed, the delivery timeline shifts accordingly.”
+

“Accordingly” has no ceiling and no renegotiation trigger. A two-week delay on your side can legitimise an open-ended shift on theirs, with the burden of proof on you. Symmetry is absent: the contract prices no consequence for vendor-side slippage at all.

+
ACTIONAmendment A3: shift equals documented delay, capped at 15 business days, then mandatory re-plan; vendor delay mirrored with a capped penalty (0.1%/day, max 10% of stage).
+
+
+ +
+
F-06Acceptance is a signature, not a testMAJOR
+
+

Acceptance is defined as “signing of the acceptance act”. Nothing says what is being verified, how long you have to review, what a rejection must contain, or what happens when you disagree. In practice this clause converts every quality dispute into a payment dispute.

+
ACTIONAmendment A4: acceptance against demonstration scenarios fixed per stage; 10 business days to review; rejection only as a single itemised list; defect severity classes defined; silence = acceptance, in both directions.
+
+
+ +
+
F-07The savings live in the quality budgetMAJOR
+
+

Against our benchmark of comparable estimates: QA at 9% of hours sits well under the observed 14–27%; project management at 3.9% under 8–18%. This is where the attractive price comes from. Under-priced coordination and testing return as your staff doing the vendor’s management, and as defects after go-live.

+
ACTIONAsk the vendor to either restore QA/PM to defensible levels with a price adjustment, or contractually name the client-side effort they are assuming.
+
+
+ +
+
F-08Eleven exclusions, priced at zero, waiting to be change requestsMAJOR
+
+

We score every exclusion by the probability the project cannot ship without it. Of 19 exclusions, 11 are functions NordFit will almost certainly need in year one — among them payment retries on failed direct debits, staff access roles, and GDPR data-deletion flows. Priced at vendor rates, the likely change-request tail is €47–71k (17–25% of the contract).

+
ACTIONAmendment A6: pre-price the top 6 exclusions as fixed-price options at signature (vendors price generously once the contract is theirs); cap annual CR volume subject to re-tender.
+
+
+ +
+
F-09What it costs to own, not just to buildCLARIFY
+
+

The proposal is silent on running costs. Reconstructed from its own architecture: cloud hosting ~€9,600/yr, third-party licences ~€4,400/yr, store accounts €125/yr, and post-warranty support at the vendor’s stated rate ~€17,000/yr — roughly €31,000 per year, or 33% of the build price over three years. It belongs in your budget before signature.

+
+
+ +
+
F-10“Senior team” at €52/hourCLARIFY
+
+

The blended rate is plausible for a strong mid-level team and low for the all-senior team the proposal describes. One of two things is true: the grades are optimistic (then F-07 is the mechanism), or the vendor is pricing to win. A direct question tends to produce an honest answer and a useful clause: named key people with substitution rights.

+
+
+
+ +
+
03

Required amendments before signature

+
    +
  1. Post-discovery price adjustment bounded to ±10%, itemised, with a no-cost exit above the cap. (F-02)
    2. +
  2. 3-month warranty inside the price; critical response ≤ 4 business hours; defect defined. (F-04)
    3. +
  3. Delay symmetry: client-delay shift capped at 15 business days, vendor-delay penalty capped at 10% of stage. (F-05)
    4. +
  4. Acceptance by demonstration scenarios, 10-day review window, itemised rejection, severity classes. (F-06)
    5. +
  5. Member-data migration resolved at signature: in scope, or promise removed. (F-03)
    6. +
  6. Top-6 exclusions pre-priced as options; corrected estimate lines (F-01) attached as the binding version. (F-08, F-01)
    7. +
  7. IP and code escrow: repository access from day one, title passing per paid stage. (standard)
    8. +
+

Each amendment is drafted in the full report as ready-to-paste contract language. Vendors accept most of them in our experience — these are terms a serious vendor can live with.

+
+ +
+
04

Method: how we read a proposal

+
+

A · Craft invariants

Every estimate is recomputed line by line and tested against ranges observed across our proposal base: estimate granularity, QA and management shares, rate grids, options discipline.

+

B · Unit benchmarks

Scale is judged per unit — hours per domain service, per integration, per app channel — so a €280k proposal and a €2m programme are compared honestly.

+

C · Both sides of the table

We have written winning proposals for vendors for 8 years. We know where risk is parked — exclusions, acceptance clauses, options — because we have parked it there ourselves.

+
+
+ +
+
breazu · Independent proposal audit
Full audit of this class: €2,500 · 5 business days · report + amendment language + 60-min call
+
Conflict rule: we never work for both sides
of the same deal, and take no referral fees.
+
+ +
This is a demonstration report. The client, vendor and proposal are synthetic, constructed from defect patterns found across 12+ real proposals we have written or audited.
+ + ← breazu — services and pricing + +
+ +