Ezzi Clarity — Working Structure
This document records who holds what role in the corporation today, and the conditions under which that structure is expected to change. Ownership and governance are Arva’s alone; Vijay holds one recorded management role. Read on for exactly what that means in practice.
flowchart TD
A["Arva Yusuf Ezzi<br/>Sole Director · 100% Shareholder"]
A --> B["President"]
A --> C["Secretary"]
A --> D["Founder & Lead Consultant"]
A --> E["Chief Executive Officer"]
A --> F["General Manager"]
A -.recorded management role only.-> G["Srinivasa Vijay Bhushan Panangipally<br/>Sales Manager"]
Current structure
Arva Yusuf Ezzi is sole director and 100% shareholder of Ezzi Clarity Educational Consulting
Services Inc. — 100 common shares, certificate C-1, issued November 21, 2025 — a British Columbia
corporation (BC1564261) registered extra-provincially in Ontario (OCN 1001423284). The
corporation’s public Ontario Corporations Information Act profile lists no officers or managers,
but that profile only reflects what’s been filed with the public registry — it is not the full
picture. The corporation’s own signed organizational resolutions (CR-1005 in
registers/corporate-records-register.md) record
a fuller set of roles: Arva Yusuf Ezzi as President, Secretary, Founder and Lead Consultant, Chief
Executive Officer, and General Manager, and Srinivasa Vijay Bhushan Panangipally as Sales
Manager. Vijay is not a shareholder or director — those remain Arva’s alone — but he does hold a
recorded management role, which the discussion below should be read in light of. The full formal
records are kept in company/legal/corporate/, catalogued with permanent
record IDs in registers/corporate-records-register.md.
The corporation’s registered and records office is maintained by Gordon J. Fretwell Law Corporation at 2110–650 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, at a stated annual cost of approximately CAD 430–480. This arrangement is under review — the open question of whether to replace it with a lower-cost long-term solution is tracked in:
What this means operationally is that governance, ownership, and the substance of the practice —
pricing, curriculum content, which venue to approach next, whether a given week’s outreach message
sounds right, what the financials say about whether to run a third cohort — run through Arva as
sole director and shareholder. Vijay’s recorded Sales Manager role reflects an intent for him to
be involved in the commercial/outreach side rather than a division of ownership or governance
authority; the extent to which that role is actively exercised day-to-day, versus formal-only, is
not something this document should assume without confirming it directly with both of them. That
distinction — governance concentrated in Arva, some commercial involvement contemplated for Vijay
— is not a gap to be corrected as soon as possible; it is a deliberate fit for the practice as
scoped in company/strategy/business-plan.md: a steady side practice, not a growth venture,
intentionally built around 6–10 hours a week rather than around building an organization. The
capacity model in company/strategy/business-plan.md §7.1 — one cohort at a time, up to three
concurrent 1:1 clients, roughly one talk a month — was designed for exactly one person’s
available hours, and a solo structure is the natural operating shape of a business built at that
scale. Adding structure (a co-founder, a manager, a formal team) before there’s a specific,
concrete task that a solo founder genuinely cannot do alone would add coordination overhead to a
business whose entire strategic thesis is minimizing overhead and maximizing what one person’s
prepared material can produce, term after term, without being redone.
Planned evolution
This section is deliberately conditional rather than a committed hiring plan, because bringing on help before there’s a specific bounded task to hand off would work against the capacity-first design of the business rather than support it. Two conditions, tied to milestones already defined elsewhere in this repository, are the most likely triggers for the founder to bring on help of some kind:
The first is the cohort model proving out across multiple terms, per the success criteria in
company/strategy/roadmap.md §5 and the term-by-term plan in
company/strategy/growth-plan.md. Once real revenue is flowing predictably —
even at the modest $3,300–4,800 year-one range projected in company/strategy/business-plan.md
§10.3 — the first practical need is likely to be a bookkeeper or accountant for a bounded,
recurring task (managing HST/GST filings, keeping the corporation’s books straight now that it’s
an incorporated entity rather than a sole proprietorship), not a hire into the business’s actual
work of designing and delivering the program.
The second is the publishing arm becoming active, per the conditional path laid out in
company/strategy/growth-plan.md. If a manuscript reaches production, the founder is likely to
need an illustrator for a specific, bounded piece of work — again a contractor engaged for a
defined deliverable, not an employee added to an ongoing team.
In both cases, the expected shape of “bringing on help” is a contractor engaged for a specific,
bounded task, consistent with the founder-operated, no-employees structure that exists today
remaining true even as individual pieces of work get delegated. That’s a different kind of growth
than adding headcount to the business itself, and it’s the kind of growth that fits a steady
side-practice model rather than working against it. If and when the business’s ambitions change —
if it stops being a steady side practice and starts being scoped as a growth venture — this
document is where that change in structure should be recorded, and it would need to be revisited
alongside company/strategy/business-plan.md’s core scoping decision, not treated as a change
this document can absorb quietly on its own.