Creator royalty split settlement desk
Reduce disputed balances and speed transparent payouts.
- For
- Small collaborative creative collectives
- Solves
- Collaborators cannot reconcile shared project income.
- Delivers
- Reviewed royalty allocation ledger
- Built in
- about 3 weeks of creation time, MVP in 3 days
- Investment
- $19,000 for the MVP, $50,000 for the full product
- Run it
- Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients
What it does
Reduce disputed balances and speed transparent payouts.
- Extract agreed allocation rules.
- Reconcile received income.
- Draft contributor statements.
- Compare the reviewed result with the recorded baseline and value assumptions.
- Capture corrections and named-owner approval before consequential use.
- Export a versioned reviewed royalty allocation ledger with source references and unresolved questions.
What goes in, what comes out
- Approved split agreements
- Payment exports
AI drafts, people review. Operational coordination portal.
- Reviewed royalty allocation ledger
How it works
The workflow
- InStart with
Approved split agreements and payment exports
- 1
Confirm the buyer's problem and scope
- 2
Collect approved split agreements and payment exports
- 3
Then follow this sequence: 1
- OutFinish with
Reviewed royalty allocation ledger
AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge
Use AI to interpret permitted inputs, suggest structured mappings and generate candidate outputs for the three stated task modules. Use deterministic code for arithmetic, schema validation, hard constraints and reproducible tests. Review source-linked explanations and uncertainty before accepting results. One agreement type; deterministic arithmetic; no funds custody. A model suggestion is never a verified fact, professional decision or authorization to act.
What your team sees
Primary screens: Request and prerequisites, Owner-controlled task board, Completion evidence. Use a queue or timeline as the opening view, with clear owners, dates and current states. Each case opens into its source context, proposed actions and discussion. Give external participants a limited form or status page. Make the next required action visible without opening every record. Make the task-specific outcome reviewed royalty allocation ledger visible beside its evidence, review state and value baseline.
Accounts and administration
Role permissions, task ownership, deadlines, reminders, approval gates, exception handling, action history, duplicate prevention and reversible configuration. Add organization access boundaries, named reviewers, usage caps, data retention controls, export logs and explicit approval for external actions.
Integrations and data access
Existing artwork, campaign systems and client approval processes. Calendars, email, task managers and relevant business records. Use draft actions and supervised handoffs first, then enable only specifically authorized writes. Start with authorized file exchange. Validate current provider access, usage rights and schema behavior before promising a connector.
How we build it
We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.
- 1
Scoping call
Day 1Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.
- 2
MVP
3 daysOne buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: extract agreed allocation rules; reconcile received income. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.
- 3
Paid pilot
4 daysAccounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- 4
Full product
8 daysSelf-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
- 5
Run and improve
MonthlyWe host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.
Why we start with an MVP
An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.
- Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will small collaborative creative collectives use it to solve "collaborators cannot reconcile shared project income"?
- Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
- Run a paid pilot. Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs.
- Measure, then decide. Track reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.
MVP scope for this solution. Pilot scope: One agreement type; deterministic arithmetic; no funds custody. Implement one approved input format, a bounded representative case set and the first two task modules: extract agreed allocation rules; reconcile received income. Support the third module with operator review: draft contributor statements. Include source references, corrections, basic organization access, approval states, export and value measurement. Use managed operator assistance for unresolved exceptions. The cost estimate covers this narrow prototype, not unrestricted multi-tenant scale, complex production integrations, specialist certification or physical operations.
After the MVP. Once paid pilots prove usefulness, automate repeatable reviewed steps and add one verified source integration. Expand supported inputs and case volume only after new evaluation cases pass. Build reusable customer configurations and recurring value reports around reviewed royalty allocation ledger. Retain the explicit scope boundary: One agreement type; deterministic arithmetic; no funds custody.
What the build depends on. Explicit state definitions, owner mapping, approval rules, idempotent actions, notifications and recovery procedures. Workflow reliability matters more than fluent text. Obtain representative authorized cases, baseline measurements, qualified reviewers and a buyer-side decision owner. Specific limitation: One agreement type; deterministic arithmetic; no funds custody.
Investment
A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.
- Phase 1
MVP
One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: extract agreed allocation rules; reconcile received income. Manual review in the loop.
- Phase 2
Paid pilot
Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- Phase 3
Full product
Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
Indicative total, MVP to full product$50,000about 3 weeks of creation time · start with the MVP from $19,000
Running costs per month
A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.
| Stage | Hosting and infrastructure | AI usage | Total per month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilotabout 3 customers | $30–$60 | $40–$90 | $70–$150 |
| Full productabout 50 customers | $110–$210 | $280–$560 | $390–$770 |
Run it or resell it
For your own team
Small collaborative creative collectives run it inside the business: approved split agreements and payment exports in, reviewed royalty allocation ledger out, reviewed by your people.
As part of your offer
Agencies, consultancies and software companies can offer it to their own clients under their brand. We build and maintain it; you sell and deliver it.
Your brand, or this one
Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.
- primary
#914527 - accent
#54c7c9 - surface
#f1e8e4 - ink
#22201e
- Headings
- Manrope
- Text
- Manrope
- Voice
- Confident, visual, craft-proud
Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook
Pricing to test
Test USD 750-2,500 setup plus USD 200-800 monthly for one bounded workflow and team. Cap case volume and implementation scope. Larger operational integrations need separate quotes. Prices are hypotheses. Package the initial sale as one bounded reviewed royalty allocation ledger. Recurring fees must specify volume, review depth and integration support. For exchanges, test a disclosed coordination or successful-service fee rather than holding customer funds. Reprice only after measuring real delivery labor; platform-build cost is separate from a commercial pilot fee.
Message to test
Reduce disputed balances and speed transparent payouts. Demonstrate a concrete reviewed royalty allocation ledger using the buyer's approved example and show the baseline, corrections and actual delivery effort.
Where to find buyers
Small collaborative creative collectives professional communities; specialist consultants serving this buyer; permissioned partner introductions; practical demonstrations at relevant trade or practitioner events.
Lead magnet
A reviewed sample reviewed royalty allocation ledger from a small authorized input set, with a transparent calculation of reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs and no promised savings.
The first 30 days
- Week 1: interview five small collaborative creative collectives and inspect a recent example of collaborators cannot reconcile shared project income.
- Week 2: prepare a consented or synthetic demonstration of the three task modules.
- Week 3: seek one bounded paid pilot with agreed baseline and acceptance criteria.
- Week 4: measure reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs, reviewer effort and repeat-purchase interest. This is a demand-validation plan, not a thirty-day full-product delivery promise.
Paid pilot
Agree quality and outcome thresholds before the pilot using this measure: Reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs. Continue only if the buyer accepts the actual output, the intended job outcome improves without unacceptable errors, and measured delivery cost fits willingness to pay. Revise or stop if access is unavailable, qualified review cannot be provided, or apparent savings disappear after corrections and support. Use held-out cases when comparing model quality; use a properly reviewed comparison design before making causal claims. Record missing cases and negative results alongside successful outputs.
Success metrics
Reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs; accepted-output rate; material error rate; reviewer correction time; actual repeat purchase.
Retention and expansion
Repeat the workflow when the buyer again needs reviewed royalty allocation ledger. Retain permissioned settings and reviewed examples, report realized value honestly, and sell increased volume or adjacent approved workflows only after contribution margin and quality remain acceptable.
Why clients would pick it
Customer-specific workflow rules, reliable handoffs, operational history and integrations that make the service part of daily work. Build a permissioned library of representative task cases, reviewer corrections and verified operating constraints for small collaborative creative collectives. Repeatable delivery and useful integrations matter more than access to a base model.
Alternatives and positioning
Shared inboxes, spreadsheets, task boards and existing workflow automation products. Compare this product with the buyer's present method on reconciliation hours saved plus resolved underpayments minus review costs. Offer a bounded paid workflow instead of claiming broad autonomous expertise. Market uniqueness and competitor coverage are not verified.
Main delivery costs
Workflow configuration, integration maintenance, model calls, notification delivery, exception support and monitoring. Additional initial validation requires representative authorized sample preparation, buyer interviews, buyer-side evaluation and bounded validation of reviewed royalty allocation ledger. Track cost per accepted output, including correction work, unsuccessful cases and support.
Safeguards
Protect supplied asset rights, client approvals and product fidelity. Do not reuse private client assets across accounts. One agreement type; deterministic arithmetic; no funds custody. Keep all consequential actions under authorized human control and do not fabricate missing inputs, permissions, professional judgments or market evidence.