JaxillMind

Who it is for: Buyer: a parent of a 5-7 year-old. User: the child. The account model reflects this — one parent email, nothing about the child leaves the device. — source: jaxillmind privacy page + ASC age band, both read 2026-08-12

What it is: Brain games / fluid-intelligence (Gf) training for 5-7 year-olds, non-clinical, with an efficacy study as the credibility path. — source: domains/products.xml subdomain + the node's som reasoning ('the efficacy study is the credibility path, not a revenue path')

Why now: Built and unshipped — landing live, free tier at D97 size, native shell and IPA built, no store record pressed. The efficacy study is the gating item: in a category crowded with untested claims, the evidence is the product's entry ticket. — source: domains/products.xml id=jaxillmind stage='built, not submitted

The opportunity: Fluid-intelligence training sold to parents has a credibility problem, not a demand problem — the category is crowded with claims nobody has tested. The node's stated path is an efficacy study rather than a revenue push: earn the claim before charging for it. — source: domains/jaxillmind.xml#investor-model som reasoning ('the efficacy study is the credibility path, not a revenue path')

SAM — not yet measured. RETRACTED 2026-08-13. I had filled this at $650M from the node's #investor-model sam (~$400-900M US consumer + school-adjacent Gf training). That band is computed over the ADULT/general cognitive-training population, while this…

SOM — not yet measured. Node holds som as a [FOUNDER] atom with its reason stated: no pricing ratified and no paying user; the efficacy study is the credibility path, not a revenue path. Left open on purpose — filling it would convert a founder's open question…

LTV — not yet measured. gate.prices=null in the registry — no ratified price. The $49.99 used in this deck's TAM row came from that row's own derivation, not from a founder-ratified price, so it cannot be reused to manufacture an LTV.

CAC — not yet measured. No acquisition attempted; no store record pressed.

LTV:CAC — not yet measured. Both inputs UNMEASURED.

Churn — not yet measured. No paying users — undefined, not zero. The node states it plainly: no pricing ratified and no paying user.

Year-1 ARR — not yet measured. No price, no store presence, and the stated near-term path is an efficacy study rather than revenue.

Where it lives: jaxillmind.reaveslabs.ai · US parents of 5-7 year-olds, plus school-adjacent — source: product-registry url + the SAM's US consumer and school-adjacent framing

GTM strategy: App-store led to parents once submitted, free tier at D97 size as the entry, with the efficacy study as the credibility asset that makes the claim sellable. School-adjacent is named as a second channel. — source: domains/products.xml stage + the node's sam method (US consumer plus school-adjacent, non-clinical)

Why us: The willingness to run an efficacy study before charging, in a category whose incumbents do not. The node makes that the strategy rather than the marketing. — source: domains/jaxillmind.xml#investor-model som ('the efficacy study is the credibility path, not a revenue path')

Right in front of us: Landing live and an IPA built; the efficacy study is the one in-flight item. No store record, no pilot, no paying user. — source: domains/products.xml stage + the node's own som reasoning