Written by DROPS.ST.
When a cannabis-software forecast promises higher revenue, identify the observed baseline, assumed change and calculation linking them. Replace vague store inputs with defined evidence, test different assumptions and keep projections separate from guarantees.
DROPS gives the review concrete shop facts: product prices, units, stock and customer-linked orders. Those records can ground questions about selections and order values while the business obtains any other required evidence. They do not establish a native revenue forecast or a measured uplift caused by the platform.
This guide reviews assumptions. It does not value a business, recommend an investment or promise a commercial result.
Write the claim as a calculation
Ask what the forecast is predicting and over which period. Is it order count, recorded sales value or a different measure? Revenue and profit are different questions.
Identify the actual baseline population and source. A figure from one channel or selected sample should not quietly represent the whole store.
Separate what the business observed from what a vendor assumes will change. If the proposed feature has not been demonstrated in the intended setup, keep that dependency explicit.
Use a forecast-assumption worksheet
This original aid belongs alongside the proposal; it is not a DROPS calculator.
| Forecast entry | Evidence to request | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Predicted outcome | Defined measure and period | What is the model actually promising? |
| Observed baseline | Source, population and included activity | Is this your comparable starting point? |
| Assumed change | Specific input and proposed reason | Is it evidence or an estimate? |
| Calculation | Actual formula and units | Can another reviewer reproduce it? |
| Dependencies | Supported feature, capacity or channel requirement | What must happen for the scenario? |
| Alternative cases | Changed assumptions on the same basis | Which input drives the result? |
| Limits and owner | Missing evidence and responsible reviewer | What conclusion is justified? |
Do not accept a rounded headline instead of the model’s definitions.
Vary assumptions without inventing evidence
Keep the baseline and measure consistent while changing one assumption at a time. Record why the alternative is being considered rather than declaring it a likely outcome.
BDC’s modelling guidance recommends examining scenarios and updating assumptions with actual evidence. Use that planning principle without treating a hypothetical model as a financing or purchase recommendation. BDC modelling guidance.
Have qualified reviewers assess material financial or contractual decisions. This worksheet cannot settle them.
Hypothetical example: the rate creates the apparent gain
A fictional illustration starts with 100 defined visits. At an assumed 10% completion rate, the model produces ten orders; at 15%, it produces fifteen.
The arithmetic is clear. The unanswered question is why the model expects the rate to change. The reviewer asks for evidence relevant to the actual store, population and proposed workflow.
These invented numbers illustrate sensitivity to one input. They are not traffic data, a recommended rate, a DROPS forecast or proof that five extra orders will occur.
Verify the proposed mechanism separately
Inspect whether the proposed setup demonstrates the task said to create the change: clear product units, a supported order path or an understood staff handoff.
DROPS connects catalogue choices with customer-linked order items and shares its catalogue with connected Telegram. Use that relationship to examine the actual journey. A working demonstration does not establish the size of a future revenue effect.
If AI catalogue support is included, reviewed product-change plans still do not prove demand, legal eligibility or an uplift estimate.
Compare observations after a permitted change
Define the comparison before using later results. Keep changes in scope, prices, activity and costs visible rather than attributing every difference to software.
The weekly-review guide helps keep counting bases explicit. Actual attributed campaign sales need their own definitions and cannot be assumed incremental.
Use the operating-cost worksheet for costs the proposal requires. A revenue projection alone does not establish net benefit or what ongoing work the owner must supply.
Keep actual product, jurisdiction and provider approval separate from the model. No hypothetical scenario authorizes a cannabis transaction or communication.
Choose DROPS when connected product and order context should make the proposed shop workflow assessable. Explore DROPS.ST and the shop demos. Bring the forecast’s baseline and assumptions, demonstrate the relevant tasks and leave unsupported growth estimates visibly unresolved.