# PiP Villages - Revised Six-Month Pilot, Guarantee and Responsibilities

Sanitised commercial framework revised from the PSC pilot discussion on 10 August 2026. This record excludes email addresses, private correspondence and unrelated personal information.

## Purpose

The revised offer responds directly to a village operator's concern about paying to test an early-stage product. It materially reduces the village's risk without shifting all implementation cost, adoption risk and cash exposure to PiP.

This is a commercial proposal for legal and commercial review. It is not a final contract, warranty or unconditional promise.

## Revised pilot offer

| Element                         | Proposed term                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| ------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Pilot period                    | Six months, with a formal review and cancellation decision after 90 days                                                                                                                                          |
| Village onboarding contribution | 50% of the original onboarding cost, proposed as $2,500 plus GST, invoiced upfront                                                                                                                                |
| PiP onboarding contribution     | PiP absorbs the other 50% as its investment in establishing the pilot                                                                                                                                             |
| Pilot subscription              | $6 plus GST per agreed resident per month                                                                                                                                                                         |
| Initial payment                 | Onboarding contribution plus months one to three subscriptions, invoiced before commencement                                                                                                                      |
| 90-day guarantee                | If PSC materially participates in the agreed rollout and decides within the first 90 days that PiP is not suitable, it may cancel and receive a refund of all subscription fees paid for those first three months |
| Onboarding refund               | The onboarding contribution is non-refundable because it pays for implementation work, staff time and custom physical materials already supplied                                                                  |
| Months four to six              | If PSC continues after the 90-day review, the pilot runs for a further three months at $6 plus GST per agreed resident per month                                                                                  |
| End-of-pilot choice             | After six months, the village may consider an ongoing village-supported agreement; if it does not, individual residents may be offered a separate subscription at approximately $17 per month                     |
| PiP material non-delivery       | Separate remedies must be stated in the signed schedule if PiP fails to deliver agreed platform access, training, materials or support                                                                            |

The final quote must define “resident”. Public Kōwhainui evidence identifies villas and occupied homes, not the number of people. The agreement must address couples, vacancies, move-ins, move-outs, Abingdon scope, staff accounts and assisted users.

## What the onboarding contribution buys

Onboarding is not simply activating a software account. The proposed scope includes:

- planning the cohort, functions, timetable, responsibilities, data boundary and measures;
- configuring Kōwhainui's environment, administrator roles and agreed village information;
- setting up resident and staff access using the agreed privacy and consent process;
- preparing administrators and staff through training, guidance and follow-up assistance;
- planning and supporting resident launch activity;
- writing, designing, producing and printing custom resident information and support materials;
- answering setup questions and resolving launch issues;
- monitoring adoption and support demand; and
- preparing 30-, 60- and 90-day information and facilitating the formal review.

Most of this work is specific to the village. Staff time already delivered cannot be recovered, and custom printed material cannot be returned or resold if the village later stops. That is why the subscriptions sit behind the suitability guarantee while onboarding remains non-refundable.

PiP is nevertheless absorbing half the onboarding cost. The proposal is therefore a co-investment, not a request for the village to carry all implementation expense.

## Why a paid shared-risk pilot is the fair structure

### It separates evaluation risk from real delivery cost

PSC should not have to carry six months of subscription risk before it knows whether PiP is suitable. The 90-day guarantee addresses that concern directly. If PSC participates in the agreed rollout and stops within the guarantee window, its net first-quarter subscription cost is zero.

The guarantee does not make implementation cost disappear. Configuration, training, rollout, printing and support happen whether PSC continues or not. The 50/50 onboarding split recognises that both parties are investing in the test.

### Mutual contribution creates a more credible test

A village-wide pilot depends on more than functioning software. It needs named staff, current content, resident invitations, visible launch activity, timely problem reporting and attendance at reviews. When both parties contribute, the pilot is more likely to receive the attention needed to generate useful evidence.

A completely free deployment can be postponed or treated as optional because there is no approved budget, accountable owner or commercial decision attached to it. That may generate weak usage, but it does not reliably show whether the platform is unsuitable or whether the rollout was never genuinely activated.

Payment does not guarantee adoption or results. It helps establish the ownership and operating commitment needed to evaluate them fairly.

### Sustainable service is part of resident protection

PiP is a commercial service, not a grant programme. It needs viable revenue to provide dependable support, maintain the platform, respond to incidents, improve accessibility and remain available after the pilot.

The strongest external wording is not “we are a business, not a charity”. It is:

> For PiP to support residents reliably beyond a trial, the pilot must be sustainable for both parties from the outset. We have reduced PSC's risk substantially, while retaining a fair contribution to work that is delivered from day one.

PSC's charitable status and budget pressure are legitimate procurement considerations. They do not make Kōwhainui-specific labour, printing or support costless. The commercial question is whether the pilot deliverables and resident opportunity justify the transparent, reduced contribution.

## The value of the $6 group rate

Using the proposed prices:

- $6 is $11 per month below the approximate $17 individual rate;
- the group pilot rate is about 65% lower;
- $6 is approximately $0.20 per resident per day; and
- the six-month subscription saving is $66 per resident compared with six months at $17.

Illustrative subscription totals, excluding GST where applicable:

| Agreed residents | Group rate per month | Six months at $6 | Six months at $17 | Difference |
| ---------------: | -------------------: | ---------------: | ----------------: | ---------: |
|               25 |                 $150 |             $900 |            $2,550 |     $1,650 |
|               50 |                 $300 |           $1,800 |            $5,100 |     $3,300 |
|              100 |                 $600 |           $3,600 |           $10,200 |     $6,600 |

These are arithmetic illustrations, not a final Kōwhainui quote. The actual resident denominator must be confirmed.

The $6 price is possible because one village agreement creates a coordinated cohort, launch, billing relationship and support model. The approximate $17 individual price reflects separate acquisition, billing and support for each resident.

## Village-supported access versus resident-paid access

| Consideration | Village-supported access                                   | Resident-paid access                                      |
| ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| Price basis   | Discounted group structure under one operator agreement    | Approximately $17 per subscribing resident per month      |
| Reach         | Can be offered broadly across the agreed community         | Limited to residents who choose and are able to subscribe |
| Billing       | One commercial relationship                                | Separate resident billing relationships                   |
| Rollout       | Coordinated communications, training and support           | Individual acquisition and onboarding                     |
| Inclusion     | Better platform for assisted use and community-wide access | Greater risk of uneven uptake and affordability barriers  |
| Operator role | PSC can shape the workflow, content and service standard   | PSC has less control over an individual consumer service  |

The individual option should be presented as a legitimate alternative, not a threat. The trade-off is that declining village-funded access moves residents to a materially higher price and may reduce broad participation.

## Useful commercial analogies

These examples can make the principle clear without attacking PSC:

1. **Custom printing:** a printer charges for village-specific material once it has been designed and produced, even if the wider campaign is later cancelled.
2. **Training:** a facilitator's preparation and delivered sessions cannot be returned after the customer decides not to continue with a programme.
3. **Supplier mobilisation:** professional and trade services often separate one-off mobilisation or setup from ongoing charges because the initial work is consumed immediately.
4. **New service relationships:** genuine delivery costs are normally disclosed and paid from commencement while the customer retains service standards, remedies and termination rights. Being a first-time customer strengthens the case for protection; it does not make delivery costless.
5. **Village operations:** the familiar general principle is charges plus rights and remedies, not free delivery until value is proven. Do not claim PSC has a particular resident refund policy unless it has been verified.

The point is not that PiP and a printer, trainer or village occupation agreement are identical. The shared principle is that an evaluation right can coexist with payment for work already performed.

## What PiP is contributing

PiP's pilot contribution includes:

- a six-month evaluation period;
- the subsidised $6 per resident monthly pilot rate;
- 50% of the original onboarding cost;
- a refund of all first-90-day subscription fees under the agreed suitability guarantee;
- Kōwhainui configuration and rollout planning;
- custom printed resident launch and support material;
- staff onboarding, training and assistance;
- ongoing administrator and pilot support;
- 30-, 60- and 90-day monitoring and a formal review;
- feedback and improvement sessions; and
- access to selected developing PiP functionality where expressly agreed.

This contribution should be placed beside PSC's contribution on one page. The conversation is then about how both parties fund and operate a serious pilot, rather than whether PiP should provide an uncapped free trial.

## Starting success scorecard

Targets must be agreed before launch and adjusted to the village's size, resident profile and chosen functions. They inform the review but should not remove the suitability guarantee merely because one percentage is missed.

### Implementation

- The selected PiP functions are configured and launched by the agreed date.
- No unresolved critical platform defect prevents normal use.
- Agreed privacy, security, access, support, continuity and data boundaries are approved before live use.

### Resident adoption and usage

- Suggested starting point: about 40% of invited households meaningfully activate within 90 days.
- Suggested starting point: about 25% of invited households are active during month three.
- Report residents, households, invited, contactable, activated, assisted, active and declined cohorts separately.
- Measure useful completed actions and repeat use, not account creation or logins alone.
- Do not treat residents who freely decline digital use as service failures.

### Staff confidence and workload

- At least two village administrators complete training.
- Administrators can independently manage the agreed core functions.
- Setup, weekly administration, duplicate entry, resident assistance and unresolved support time are measured.

### Feedback

- Residents and staff have an accessible opportunity to comment.
- Suggested starting point: at least 70% of respondents rate PiP positively for usefulness, accessibility or ease of use.
- Response counts and denominators are always reported; a small or self-selected group is not presented as representative of all residents.

## PiP responsibilities

PiP will:

1. Document the launch plan, cohort, functions, data boundary, measures, responsibilities, guarantee dates and stop conditions.
2. Configure the agreed village information, functions and administrator access.
3. Provide initial administrator training and one follow-up or refresher session.
4. Prepare resident launch information, registration instructions and agreed custom printed material.
5. Support an agreed demonstration or launch session.
6. Maintain regular contact with the village pilot champion during launch.
7. Provide ongoing administrator support and promptly investigate reported issues.
8. Provide agreed registration, activation, usage, support and workflow information at approximately 30, 60 and 90 days.
9. Recommend practical changes when adoption or engagement is below expectations.
10. Conduct a formal 90-day review and document whether the pilot should continue, change or stop.
11. Maintain agreed privacy, security, accessibility, continuity, backup, incident, export and deletion controls.
12. Process a valid subscription refund within the timeframe stated in the signed schedule.

## Village responsibilities

The village will:

1. Pay the agreed onboarding contribution and subscription invoices by the stated dates.
2. Appoint a senior sponsor with authority to resolve internal barriers and approve decisions.
3. Appoint a day-to-day pilot champion and one or more administrators.
4. Provide accurate village, staff and resident information, permissions and agreed starting content within the documented timeframe.
5. Ensure nominated administrators and at least one backup attend training.
6. Invite the agreed cohort, hold at least one launch or demonstration and provide reasonable help with registration.
7. Communicate about PiP during the pilot and keep the agreed announcements, events or other content reasonably current.
8. Actively use the selected functions or workflows.
9. Promptly report technical or operational problems and cooperate with investigation.
10. Attend planning and review meetings, encourage accessible resident and staff feedback and raise concerns while they can still be addressed.
11. Preserve phone, print, face-to-face and assisted alternatives for people who do not or cannot use PiP.
12. Give cancellation notice through the authorised person and process stated in the signed schedule.

“Material participation” must be defined in the signed terms. A reasonable starting point is that PSC names the agreed owners, supplies required information, attends training, invites the cohort, supports the launch, keeps selected content current, reports problems and attends the 90-day review. Minor shortfalls should not remove the guarantee. A material failure should require notice and a reasonable opportunity to remedy it.

## Suggested responses to common objections

### “Why not make the first three months free?”

The refund guarantee provides almost the same downside protection: after a valid 90-day cancellation, PSC's net subscription cost is zero. The difference is that refundable paid months preserve an approved budget and mutual accountability during the test.

### “Why should onboarding be non-refundable?”

Because the service and materials are delivered before the cancellation decision. PiP is already absorbing half that cost. The fair control is an itemised scope and milestones, not asking PiP to absorb 100% after completing the work.

### “PSC is a charity.”

PSC should spend only where the proposed resident and operational value justifies it. PiP is not asking PSC to fund general product development; the contribution pays for Kōwhainui-specific delivery. PiP is also making a substantial contribution, and sustainable supplier economics support continuity.

### “Residents should pay because they benefit.”

That is a possible later model, but it is approximately $17 per resident, involves individual billing and support, and may restrict access. PSC also benefits from a coordinated village-wide channel and can choose whether broad access aligns with its service model.

### “PiP is unproven.”

That is why the proposal includes a six-month pilot, subsidised pricing, half-price onboarding, explicit responsibilities, a 90-day subscription refund and a stop path. Early-stage status supports stronger protections and a bounded scope, not the assumption that real labour and materials have no cost.

## Matters the signed terms still need to define

- The exact contracting PiP entity and PSC/operator entity.
- The original onboarding amount, the exact 50% contribution and the itemised deliverables.
- Whether subscription pricing is calculated per eligible resident, invited resident, occupied home, household or another fixed cohort.
- Couples, staff accounts, assisted users, vacancies, move-ins and move-outs.
- Tax, invoice dates, payment timing and the months-four-to-six commitment.
- What counts as material participation in the agreed rollout.
- The authorised cancellation method, deadline, refund request and refund-payment timeframe.
- Separate remedies if PiP materially fails to deliver.
- What counts as activation, active use, a critical defect and material non-delivery.
- Data roles, privacy statement, information security, breach handling, subcontractors and hosting.
- Accessibility, support hours, service continuity, data export, deletion and exit assistance.
- Intellectual property, confidentiality, publicity, logos, case studies and reference rights.
- Liability caps, indemnities, insurance, force majeure and dispute resolution.
- The post-pilot village group price and whether the operator remains the payer.
- The terms, consent, billing, support, hardship and continuity model for any later individual resident subscription.

## Evidence and claim boundary

- The proposed $2,500 plus GST contribution assumes it represents 50% of the original onboarding price and must be confirmed against the original quote.
- The $6 pilot rate and approximate $17 individual rate are proposed commercial figures, not independently validated market prices.
- The 25-, 50- and 100-resident totals are arithmetic examples, not a quote or forecast of uptake.
- The offer does not prove PiP improves occupancy, health, loneliness, satisfaction, staff efficiency or property performance.
- Suggested adoption and feedback percentages are review guides, not established outcomes or automatic guarantee exclusions.
- Any testimonial, case study or wider rollout requires a separate, permissioned decision after the evidence is reviewed.

## Source

- User-supplied revised PiP pilot proposal, 10 August 2026.
- Earlier user-supplied shared discussion, “Financial Concerns in Pilots”, dated 7 August 2026: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a77fda7-b434-83ec-acf3-1c01be51af25