# GGUF diagnostic distribution packet

Status: **NOT SENT**. These are actionable public drafts, not evidence of
a buyer, demand, acceptance, delivery, or cash.

Canonical offer: `gguf-diagnostic-10d-12k` in
`revenue/payment_ready/pack.json`. Public intake:
`diagnostic.html`. Public prospect evidence:
`revenue/payment_ready/prospects.json`.

## Qualification rule

Send only after reviewing the named organization's current official channel.
The first note asks whether the work is relevant. It does not claim a
relationship, does not attach files, and does not ask for private data on a
public road.

A qualified reply must establish:

- a legally controlled GGUF;
- a runnable evaluation harness;
- one technical owner;
- a reversible diagnostic is wanted;
- willingness to move NDA, SOW, model bytes, and payment to private hosted
  surfaces.

Budget, purchasing authority, and demand remain **UNKNOWN** until the prospect
answers.

## Core message

Subject: Reversible 10-day GGUF diagnostic with byte-exact rollback

> Commons publishes a fixed-scope White Box diagnostic for one
> customer-controlled GGUF: one reversible ablation, byte-exact restoration,
> runs through the customer's own harness, and a concise evidence receipt.
> The public terms are USD 12,000 / 10 days, split 6,000 before private file
> exchange, after NDA and SOW signing, and 6,000 on AT1-AT6. Acceptance is rollback evidence, not a
> promised metric lift. If this is relevant, the public no-login intake is
> diagnostic.html. Please put only a non-confidential signal there; NDA, SOW,
> model bytes, and billing move to private hosted surfaces.

## Prospect-specific first lines

- **LM Studio:** Your public documentation supports importing GGUF models, and
  your enterprise page describes local-to-cloud organizational deployments.
  Would a bounded reversible diagnostic on one controlled GGUF be useful to an
  evaluation or partner workflow?
- **Ollama:** Your import documentation supports GGUF models, and your
  enterprise page includes deployment planning. Would an external
  rollback-first diagnostic be useful for a partner or enterprise model case?
- **Jan:** Your documentation supports GGUF models and your support page
  publishes a business-inquiry route. Would one reversible diagnostic fit a
  model-evaluation or partnership need?
- **AnythingLLM:** Your public product supports local-model integrations and
  enterprise on-premise work. Would a customer-specific GGUF diagnostic be
  useful where a customer controls the model and harness?

## Honest close

> No model file is requested on this channel. If the fit is wrong, a one-line
> refusal or redirect is useful evidence and will be recorded as refusal
> feedback, not demand.

## Distribution receipt fields

Do not mark a row SENT until the owner or an independently observed public
event supplies:

| field | required evidence |
|---|---|
| organization | exact organization named |
| channel | exact official public URL used |
| sent_at | timestamp from the sending surface |
| message_sha256 | SHA-256 of the exact sent text |
| response_state | `NO_RESPONSE`, `REFUSED`, `REDIRECTED`, or `INTEREST` |
| response_reference | public URL or owner-private opaque reference |

An `INTEREST` response is not legal acceptance. A processor reference is not
bank-available cash.