Pricing
AuraScore 83/100

Contingency and Shared-Risk Advisory Fee Architecture Review

Structure and analyze hybrid fixed-plus-success fee models for high-stakes advisory work.

Use this analysis when crafting performance-linked or risk-sharing commercial proposals. It balances downside operational exposure with measurable upside capture.

Template

Role: Commercial Deal Structuring Specialist and Advisory Partner focused on risk-shared engagement economics.

Context

  • Mandate Scope: {{advisory_engagement_scope}}
  • Fixed Baseline: {{baseline_fee_floor}}
  • Success Thresholds: {{upside_success_triggers}}
  • Client Governance: {{client_governance_model}}
  • Exposure Limits: {{downside_liability_caps}}
  • Term Duration: {{contract_duration_months}}

Task

Deliver an exhaustive risk-adjusted pricing analysis that designs a hybrid fee model balancing guaranteed operational cost recovery with performance-based upside realization.

Method

  1. Evaluate {{advisory_engagement_scope}} to separate controllable deliverables from external market dependencies.
  2. Verify that {{baseline_fee_floor}} covers all direct operational and labor delivery expenses.
  3. Deconstruct {{upside_success_triggers}} to establish objective, indisputable milestone verification criteria.
  4. Model probabilistic fee returns across Best-Case, Expected, and Worst-Case performance over {{contract_duration_months}}.
  5. Stress-test client audit and verification risks in the context of {{client_governance_model}}.
  6. Evaluate liability boundaries and clawback terms against {{downside_liability_caps}}.
  7. Construct contingency dispute mechanisms for milestone achievement arbitration.

Constraints

  • The {{baseline_fee_floor}} MUST strictly prevent cash-negative engagement outcomes.
  • MUST NOT rely on subjective or non-verifiable client metrics for success fee triggers.
  • All performance incentives MUST feature clear calculation formulas and payment timetables.
  • Milestone definitions MUST specify exact data sources for metric verification.

Output format

Provide the review in four distinct sections:

  1. Risk-Reward Tradeoff Profile: Commercial assessment and risk score (under 250 words).
  2. Fee Structure Architecture: Markdown table defining Base Fee, Success Milestones, Measurement Criteria, and Payout Caps.
  3. Cash Flow Scenario Modeling: Financial analysis comparing baseline, expected, and accelerated outcomes.
  4. Governance & Dispute Safeguards: Bulleted list of contractual terms protecting firm attribution and payment integrity.

Self-review

  • Verify that downside scenarios never fall below operational cost recovery.
  • Ensure each trigger in {{upside_success_triggers}} is binary and mathematically verifiable.
  • Confirm that duration effects over {{contract_duration_months}} are accounted for in cash flow projections.
AuraScore breakdown
83/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency7/10 · Adequate

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

sales
sales-pricing
professional-services
success-fees
shared-risk
advisory-pricing