Water Resources Engineering PhD (focus on climate change) and now in consulting for F100 companies. I'm probably the type of people you're looking to pay for this.
I love this as a product. I've used similar products/competitors that are much more feature rich and at my consulting firm we have our own group of internal tooling that pretty much does very similar things but we don't have to pay or outsource to another entity.
If I may add a few points of suggestions.
1. I need to understand the level of uncertainty this methodology brings or else it's not really useful for me.
2. The pricing is not competitive. You're asking someone to pay for an analysis that's freely available or with "lower grade of data". Most places want higher number of sites to understand what the level of risk is. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be "good enough" to make decisions (the pareto front problem). Your product looks cool but isn't answering the "why pay for it when I can get a good enough solution for free" argument. Unless your methodology is really compelling and/or is peer reviewed, it's going to be hard for us to justify paying for this product. If I'm going to pay for a flood analysis, I'm not going to pay for extreme precipitation but I'd rather pay (or do pay) https://fathom.global and Paul Bates' people for their flood data directly.
3. Climate Change is a major factor and it's impacting many larger organization's decision process. The White Paper glosses over climate change as follow guidance from IPCC Atlas. If you can include AR6 projections and show the relative change/difference or something more on top of this then I can see more of a reason to use the product. But if it's just an extreme precipitation analysis with no climate change (or hand-wavy climate change), it's hard for us to justify the charge.
I have a lot more suggestions but these are the top 3 that I can recommend.
I'm interested in hearing how this product continues to mature and grow! This is pretty cool.
I love this as a product. I've used similar products/competitors that are much more feature rich and at my consulting firm we have our own group of internal tooling that pretty much does very similar things but we don't have to pay or outsource to another entity.
If I may add a few points of suggestions.
1. I need to understand the level of uncertainty this methodology brings or else it's not really useful for me.
2. The pricing is not competitive. You're asking someone to pay for an analysis that's freely available or with "lower grade of data". Most places want higher number of sites to understand what the level of risk is. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be "good enough" to make decisions (the pareto front problem). Your product looks cool but isn't answering the "why pay for it when I can get a good enough solution for free" argument. Unless your methodology is really compelling and/or is peer reviewed, it's going to be hard for us to justify paying for this product. If I'm going to pay for a flood analysis, I'm not going to pay for extreme precipitation but I'd rather pay (or do pay) https://fathom.global and Paul Bates' people for their flood data directly.
3. Climate Change is a major factor and it's impacting many larger organization's decision process. The White Paper glosses over climate change as follow guidance from IPCC Atlas. If you can include AR6 projections and show the relative change/difference or something more on top of this then I can see more of a reason to use the product. But if it's just an extreme precipitation analysis with no climate change (or hand-wavy climate change), it's hard for us to justify the charge.
I have a lot more suggestions but these are the top 3 that I can recommend.
I'm interested in hearing how this product continues to mature and grow! This is pretty cool.