Ezzi Clarity Portal

Ezzi Clarity — Roadmap

This is the working execution roadmap: the constraints it’s built around, where the business came from and stands today, the core strategic decision driving it, the 90-day plan currently in motion, and the criteria for knowing whether to keep going or change course. It absorbs and supersedes the original dated strategy design document, which is kept at archive/2026-08-23-ezzi-clarity-strategy-design.md for its original point-in-time reasoning. This document, unlike that one, is a living document — it gets edited in place as circumstances change, rather than superseded by a new dated file.

Contents

1. Constraints this roadmap is built around

These came from the founder and are treated as fixed. If any changes, the roadmap changes with it — that’s the point of keeping this as a living document rather than a fixed plan.

The goal is a steady side practice, not primary income, which means the roadmap optimizes for earnings per hour and reusable assets rather than for growth at any cost. The capacity is 6–10 hours a week including prep, admin, and outreach, which in practice means roughly 4–6 active 1:1 clients or one group cohort at a time — not both at full scale simultaneously. The buyer is parents and families, both newcomer and international, which means this is a trust-based, community-mediated purchase rather than something sold through a website — nobody buys a cohort seat for their child’s academic future from a cold ad. The price posture has to stay modest because accessibility matters to the practice’s mission, which is precisely why 1:1-only economics don’t work at this scale and a group format is structurally necessary, not just preferred. Current traction is near-zero paying clients, which means the first job is building one repeatable channel, not attempting to scale something unproven. Access runs through former institutional colleagues and community/faith networks, both currently unactivated, which makes warm introductions the cheapest channel available — cheaper than anything paid, and already sitting there unused. And there is a hard boundary: no immigration or visa advice, which needs an actual operational protocol (see company/strategy/business-plan.md §8 and company/brand/positioning.md), not just a disclaimer buried in terms of service.

Assumptions made, not verified — these should be corrected as soon as any of them turns out to be wrong, since several downstream decisions depend on them:

2. Origin and current status

Ezzi Clarity Educational Consulting Services Inc. was originally incorporated in connection with a C11 entrepreneur work permit application for the founder, Arva Ezzi, with a spousal open work permit (SOWP) application for her husband riding on it as the accompanying spousal case. Shortly after that application was submitted, Arva and her husband received an invitation for permanent residence (PR) and submitted a PR application; a bridging open work permit (BOWP) and a fresh SOWP were subsequently filed as the bridge while PR is processed. As a result, a request to withdraw the C11 application was submitted; no final withdrawal confirmation has yet been received from IRCC as of this writing. Regardless of that confirmation’s timing, C11 is no longer the operative or intended immigration pathway — PR is.

This matters for how this roadmap should be read: the business’s origin is tied to that earlier process, but its present-tense reason for existing is not. PR is now the founder’s immigration track, running independently of whether or how this business succeeds. The practice is being kept and developed because it stands on its own merits — the market analysis, the founder’s genuine competitive advantages, and the cohort economics documented in company/strategy/business-plan.md all hold regardless of immigration status — not because it needs to justify itself as part of a work permit case. Supporting documentation for both the original C11 case and the current PR/BOWP/SOWP status is kept in company/legal/immigration/, catalogued as CR-9002 in registers/corporate-records-register.md.

3. The core decision

Stop selling hours. Sell a seat in a cohort.

One-on-one coaching at an accessible price has a hard ceiling: at 6–10 hours a week, even fully booked, it produces modest income and zero leverage. Every new client costs the same effort as the last. Prep is thrown away after each session, so no amount of experience compounds into lower marginal cost — the tenth 1:1 client costs exactly as much founder time as the first one did.

A small-group program inverts this. The same preparation serves eight families. The price per family stays low — which honours the accessibility commitment — while the effective hourly rate roughly doubles, because prep is written once and reused every term rather than thrown away after each session. And a room of eight families produces referrals in a way eight separate 1:1 calls do not, because parents in a shared room talk to each other in a way that isolated 1:1 clients never do.

One-on-one work does not disappear under this model. It becomes the paid add-on for families who want depth, and it stays the format for the highest-value conversations — but it is no longer the base of the business. The full economics behind this decision are documented in consulting/strategy/cohort-model.md.

4. 90-day execution roadmap

The roadmap is deliberately sequenced, not just scheduled — each phase depends on groundwork laid by the one before it, and the order below reflects that dependency, not just calendar convenience. The diagram below shows the overlaps: network activation and the decide-and-prepare phase run in parallel from week 1, the talk-building phase deliberately starts only after network activation is underway, and site fixes run alongside talk delivery rather than blocking it.

flowchart TD
    A["Weeks 1–2<br/>Decide & prepare"]
    B["Weeks 1–3<br/>Activate network"]
    C["Weeks 3–5<br/>Build the talk"]
    D["Weeks 4–8<br/>Deliver talks"]
    E["Weeks 6–8<br/>Site fixes"]
    F["Weeks 8–12<br/>Run cohort #1"]
    G["Week 12<br/>Review"]

    A --> C
    B --> C
    C --> D
    D --> F
    E --> F
    F --> G
    D -.overlaps.-> E

Weeks 1–2 — decide and prepare. Before anything public happens, the cohort dates and price need to be set, and the immigration/visa boundary protocol plus the RCIC referral list (§1’s hard boundary) need to be written down in advance. This has to come first because everything that follows — the talk, the network outreach — puts the founder in front of real families, and improvising the boundary protocol live in that moment is exactly the failure mode the risk analysis in company/strategy/business-plan.md §8 is designed to prevent.

Weeks 1–3 — activate the network, running in parallel with the decide-and-prepare phase rather than after it, since network activation takes time to yield responses and there’s no reason to wait on it. Twenty named contacts — former institutional colleagues and community/faith contacts — get reached individually, not broadcast. The ask is for a venue, not a referral: “do you know a room where a free parent talk on Canadian university expectations would be useful?” This is an easier yes than asking for referrals directly, and it produces referrals as a side effect anyway.

Weeks 3–5 — build the talk. This comes after network activation has begun (not before) because the venue conversations happening in weeks 1–3 inform what room and audience the talk needs to work for. One 60–90 minute talk gets written once, deliverable in English plus one of Gujarati, Hindi, or Arabic depending on which venue materializes first.

Weeks 4–8 — deliver talks. Two talks run in community venues, each ending with a specific, low-pressure ask: a sign-up sheet for the cohort, with dates already set. This phase overlaps with the site-fixes phase below rather than waiting for it, since the talks are the actual acquisition mechanism and shouldn’t be delayed for a website change that matters less.

Weeks 6–8 — site fixes. The language emphasis gets corrected (Hindi and Gujarati promoted, French demoted — see company/brand/positioning.md) and the institutional-insider thesis moves to the homepage. This is scheduled after the first two talks begin, not before, because the business plan is explicit that the website’s job is confirming credibility to someone who was already referred — it is not the bottleneck for the first talks, so fixing it doesn’t need to block them.

Weeks 8–12 — run cohort #1. Six to eight families, four sessions delivered, workbook v1 used in practice for the first time. This is the phase every prior phase exists to enable.

Week 12 — review. Assess against the success and kill criteria below, and decide what term 2 looks like — see company/strategy/growth-plan.md for what that review feeds into.

5. Success criteria, kill criteria, and open decisions

Success criteria at 90 days: 2 talks delivered · 6+ families in cohort #1 · workbook v1 exists and has been used by real families · ~$900–1,200 revenue from cohort #1 · 3+ unprompted referrals or repeat enquiries.

Kill criteria — when to change this specific 90-day plan, not just try harder at it:

Open decisions still outstanding (see company/strategy/business-plan.md §11 for the full list with the business-registration item now resolved): confirming $150/family is the right number, choosing the language for the first talk after English, confirming there’s no prior-employer restriction on private practice, confirming the founder’s comfort level speaking to a room of parents (since the entire acquisition channel depends on this being genuinely workable), and deciding whether to pursue professional liability insurance before the first paid cohort.