I work across commercial strategy, product systems, and operational execution—from pricing and capacity decisions to workflow architecture, automation, and implementation.
SELECTED WORK
Building a profitable subscription business—and confronting its capacity ceiling.
Replaced hourly billing with four subscription tiers, scaled to R$50K–R$60K in monthly revenue with zero paid acquisition, and automated fulfillment. Ultimately chose a controlled closure rather than scaling an unvalidated delivery model.
Identifying where commercial promises become delivery risk.
Designed a 10-day diagnostic framework using a 40-point Signal Matrix, six failure classes, and five executive remediation artifacts to examine Sales-to-Delivery handoffs.
Reduced intake clarification from 4–5 rounds to 1–2 by redesigning requirements, then built a Next.js/Postgres operating system supporting non-technical execution.
Analyzed 16,644 service tickets and rebuilt escalation rules and onboarding processes, reducing new-hire ramp-up from four weeks to three.
Implemented ALICE across Front Office, Housekeeping, and Maintenance; used scenario-based UAT with 20+ frontline users and reduced duplicate request handling by approximately 40%.
HOW I WORK
Evaluate demand, pricing, margin, and delivery capacity as connected decisions—not independent optimization targets.
Turn operational constraints into requirements, validation rules, routing logic, and workflows that teams can execute consistently.
Distinguish problems that automation can solve from structural limits that require a different business or operating decision.
PROFESSIONAL THROUGHLINE
From luxury service operations to subscription economics and software-enabled businesses, my work has consistently focused on the gap between business decisions and what teams can actually deliver.
That experience shaped how I evaluate constraints, design operating systems, and make trade-offs.
CONTACT
I'm based in New York and interested in roles where commercial decisions and operational execution need to work together.
ABOUT · NEW YORK
My career began in service environments where the consequences of poor handoffs, unclear ownership, and operational decisions were immediately visible to customers.
I later moved into systems implementation and business ownership—leading platform adoption at Hotel Unique, analyzing service failures at The Empire Hotel, and building Study Smart's subscription model, pricing, acquisition, and fulfillment systems.
Today, at ELUZA, I apply that experience to product architecture and operational systems: translating business requirements into workflows, decision rules, and tools that support independent execution.
HOW I THINK
Grounded in concrete commercial, product, and operational trade-offs across my work.
At Study Smart, subscription pricing, purchasing power, delivery capacity, and margin protection had to be designed together. Automating fulfillment improved efficiency but did not eliminate the business's dependence on founder-delivered instruction.
At Empire, ticket analysis informed escalation and onboarding redesign. At Hotel Unique, departmental handoffs became routing rules and UAT scenarios. At ELUZA, incomplete intake requirements became structured validation and operator workflows.
I favor systems that can operate within real delivery constraints. That has meant rejecting unvalidated instructor expansion, designing ELUZA for non-technical operators, and prioritizing existing-tool governance over platform migrations in the Handoff Audit framework.
CAREER THROUGHLINE
Working across reservations, concierge, and facilities taught me how service commitments, cost boundaries, and unclear handoffs affect delivery in real time.
I moved from resolving operational problems to redesigning their underlying systems: implementing ALICE across departments, building Study Smart's commercial and fulfillment model, and using 16,644 service tickets to redesign processes at Empire.
I now design the product and operational infrastructure for a travel-design service, connecting client intake, data models, AI-assisted workflows with human review, payments, and fulfillment through a system that non-technical operators can use.
CURRENT FOCUS
SELECTED CASE / 01 · AUG 2023—JAN 2025 · PRODUCT STRATEGY · COMMERCIAL MODEL · OPERATIONS
How I built a content-led education business, redesigned its commercial model, automated its operations, and identified the structural constraint behind its profitability.
Peak monthly revenue implies an annualized run rate above R$720K, not realized annual revenue. The 85%+ operating margin reflects the lean, founder-operated structure before founder draw—not a staffed delivery model with replacement instructor labor priced in.
01 / THE OPPORTUNITY
Years earlier, while attending university in Brazil, I had developed an independent English-teaching practice to help cover tuition. I created my own learning materials, acquired customers through my network, and managed delivery directly.
The experience proved there was demand for my expertise. It also exposed a limitation: revenue depended on the hours I personally delivered.
Years later, while working in hospitality operations and studying product management, I began exploring how to turn that expertise into a structured business.
In 2023, I left Hotel Unique and committed to building Study Smart as my first product-led venture, while preparing for a longer-term career transition to the United States.
The opportunity was to design a business where useful content demonstrated the product before purchase, reduced reliance on paid acquisition, and supported multiple paths to monetization.
“Help me perform in English when the situation actually matters, without locking me into a multi-year contract.”
My market assessment identified two recurring sources of friction: long contractual commitments and learning experiences that emphasized theory while adults continued struggling with real-world communication.
I built Study Smart around practical, live instruction, supported by proprietary digital learning materials and flexible monthly subscriptions.
02 / PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE
The product combined four components:
The architecture separated activities requiring synchronous human participation from those customers could complete independently.
Use synchronous capacity for the work that cannot be delivered asynchronously.
This made live instruction more focused and allowed digital materials to support learning outside scheduled sessions.
However, the core subscription value still depended on my direct participation.
That architectural decision would eventually become the business's main growth constraint.
03 / ACQUISITION AS PRODUCT
I developed YouTube as a content-led acquisition channel where each video delivered immediate educational value while demonstrating the broader learning experience.
Videos addressed specific problems such as pronunciation, connected speech, prepositions, and professional communication.
Video descriptions and pinned comments directed interested viewers toward subscriptions and digital materials.
Organic search and a private Facebook community supported discovery and engagement. Audience questions and recurring learning difficulties informed subsequent content and material improvements.
Across 140 videos, the channel generated more than 2 million views and reached approximately 37,000 subscribers.
It qualified for the YouTube Partner Program in under six months, introducing AdSense as an additional revenue stream.
Paid media acquisition spend remained at R$0 ($0 CAC).
The channel required substantial production time, but published content could continue attracting prospective customers without additional paid media expenditure.
This created a distribution asset whose value extended beyond the initial production effort.
04 / COMMERCIAL STRATEGY
The initial offer followed a pay-per-lesson model.
Although individual sessions generated attractive margins, revenue was less predictable and each purchase introduced another direct time commitment.
Customer demand also challenged my initial pricing assumptions.
The audience included Brazilian executives in major domestic markets alongside expatriates living in the United States and Europe.
Rather than treating the domestic Brazilian market as the sole pricing reference, I calibrated the offer against the purchasing power and willingness to pay demonstrated across these customer segments.
I redesigned the model around four recurring subscription tiers without long-term contractual lock-in.
The final pricing structure, used during the business's mature operating period from 2024 through January 2025, was:
| Plan | Monthly price | Weekly live instruction |
|---|---|---|
| Basic | R$390 (1.0x Base) | 2 × 1 hour |
| Standard | R$480 (1.23x) | 3 × 1 hour |
| Pro | R$980 (2.51x) | 5 × 1 hour |
| Smart Pro | R$1,200 (3.08x) | 4 × 2 hours |
The plans included live instruction, an international certificate, and access to a partner application with more than 31,000 supplementary exercises.
The final pricing incorporated a preventive adjustment to absorb the per-user licensing cost of the partner application.
No existing student canceled following that change (0% churn), providing a useful signal of price acceptance within the active customer base.
The subscription model improved revenue predictability and enabled forward planning of committed instructional hours.
It did not eliminate the direct relationship between subscriber growth and delivery capacity.
I structured monetization around three complementary revenue streams.
Monthly plans improved revenue visibility and customer continuity but consumed recurring live-delivery capacity.
As demand increased and my live calendar approached full utilization, I expanded access to proprietary coursebooks through standalone purchases. This allowed customers to purchase structured learning materials without subscribing to live instruction. Pricing deliberately differentiated enrolled students from external buyers.
| Coursebook | Enrolled students | Standalone buyers (+20%) |
|---|---|---|
| Beginner | R$240 | R$288 |
| Intermediate | R$390 | R$468 |
| Advanced | R$600 | R$720 |
Standalone buyers paid a 20% premium over the enrolled-student price. The structure preserved a preferential price for subscribers while creating an independent purchasing path that did not consume another hour of live teaching commitment.
Published educational videos created advertising revenue through an existing content library, with no new live-session commitment attached to additional views.
Together, these revenue streams diversified monetization and reduced the proportion of commercial opportunities that depended on available teaching hours. They did not, however, eliminate the operational dependency embedded in the core subscription product.
I offered PayPal and Pix, Brazil's instant payment system, to accommodate different purchasing preferences across domestic and international customers.
The decision balanced three priorities:
Payment architecture was part of the product experience and operating model, not merely a checkout feature.
At steady state, Study Smart generated R$50K–R$60K in monthly revenue, with an operating margin above 85% before founder compensation.
Operating expenses included payment-processing fees, partner-application licensing, SaaS infrastructure, automation and AI tools, and web hosting. Paid media acquisition expenditure was zero.
The calculation excluded my own compensation for 35–40 weekly hours of live instruction, content production, product work, and business management.
This distinction is essential. The margin accurately described a lean, founder-operated business. It was not a forecast of profitability under a staffed delivery model. Replacing founder-led instruction with paid instructors would introduce material labor, training, and management costs, changing the underlying economics.
Revenue diversification improves monetization flexibility. It does not automatically make the core service scalable.
05 / OPERATING SYSTEM
Operating as a team of one required reducing the administrative work surrounding customer acquisition, checkout, onboarding, scheduling, and delivery.
I connected third-party payment workflows, WhatsApp confirmations, digital-material fulfillment, Calendly scheduling, and automated reminders through Zapier and Make.
The system reduced repetitive administration and created a more consistent customer journey.
Its most consequential operating rule concerned capacity.
When the live calendar reached full utilization, new live-subscription purchases were blocked and prospective students were redirected to a waitlist.
Standalone digital materials remained available because those transactions did not consume additional instructional hours.
This distinction translated a business constraint directly into checkout logic. It prevented overselling live capacity while preserving the ability to monetize demand through products with different fulfillment requirements.
Low-code integrations accelerated implementation and kept infrastructure costs low. The trade-off was dependence on external services and the responsibility to identify and resolve integration failures independently.
Automate repeatable processes, make resource constraints explicit, and prevent the system from accepting commitments the business cannot fulfill.
06 / THE CONSTRAINT
At 35–40 hours of live instruction per week, my calendar was fully utilized.
The business had achieved:
Yet the core subscription product remained dependent on my availability. More customers required more live instruction.
Coursebooks and AdSense could generate revenue with different capacity requirements, but the primary service could not expand without adding instructors or changing the delivery model.
This was not primarily an acquisition problem or an administrative efficiency problem. It was a constraint embedded in the product's delivery architecture.
The business could generate demand profitably, but had not established a repeatable method for delivering its core service independently of the founder.
07 / TRADE-OFFS & REJECTED ARCHITECTURES
Managing constraints requires making explicit what you will sacrifice to protect delivery quality and unit economics:
Rejected: Uncapped checkout acceptance with dynamic overbooking.
Decision: Hard-coded capacity gating at 100% calendar utilization (35–40 hrs/week), routing overflow buyers to a waitlist or asynchronous coursebooks. I sacrificed immediate subscription cashflow to guarantee 0% SLA delivery defaults.
Rejected: Building a bespoke Learning Management System (LMS) and custom billing portal.
Decision: Composed an iPaaS stack (Make, Zapier, Calendly, WhatsApp API, Partner Exercise App). I accepted webhook maintenance and manual exception handling as conscious technical debt in exchange for zero CapEx and an 85%+ operating margin.
Rejected: Subcontracting unvetted freelance tutors to clear the waitlist before U.S. relocation.
Decision: Without a validated QA telemetry layer and instructor ramp playbook, scaling headcount would have degraded the product's core value proposition and compressed unit margins.
08 / THE STRATEGIC DECISION
As my move to the United States approached, I evaluated three alternatives.
Hiring could increase capacity, but replicating the customer experience required instructor training, quality standards, supervision, and a revised cost structure. Those capabilities had not been built or validated.
Asynchronous delivery could reduce dependence on live scheduling. However, customers valued personalized interaction, real-time correction, and direct feedback. A prerecorded alternative would represent a different product proposition rather than simply a more efficient delivery mechanism.
I stopped accepting new students, fulfilled every remaining contractual commitment, and closed sales without leaving debt or unresolved customer obligations.
I also declined multiple offers to acquire the methodology because I did not believe the prospective buyers had the operating infrastructure required to reproduce the experience consistently.
The decision prioritized customer commitments, delivery quality, and reputational integrity over expansion without an adequately validated operating model.
Operational efficiency had improved substantially, but the business's binding constraint had not changed.
Expanding under those conditions would have required a different delivery architecture—not simply more automation.
09 / WHAT REMAINED
Live instruction depended on continued founder participation. Published content did not.
After I stopped publishing in January 2025, the YouTube library continued attracting viewers and subscribers.
Third-party audience snapshot; not a measure of actual AdSense earnings. View channel statistics ↗
The distinction reinforced an important product principle. Some assets continue delivering value after their initial development. Others require recurring human intervention with every additional customer.
Study Smart contained both. The live service remained founder-dependent. The educational library continued creating value without new production.
10 / WHAT I TOOK FORWARD
Study Smart demonstrated my ability to identify demand, design and price an offer, develop organic distribution, and build an efficient operating system.
It also exposed the limitations of optimizing a service whose core delivery depended on one person.
After relocating to New York and gaining experience in U.S. operations at The Empire Hotel, I applied these lessons to the architecture of ELUZA, my next venture.
This time, I designed the workflows around operational transferability from the outset.
ELUZA's centralized operating interface allows a nontechnical operator to manage routine business processes without interacting with the underlying code, while automation handles repeatable tasks and human judgment remains part of consequential decisions.
My focus shifted from personally executing every stage of delivery to designing systems that another person could operate.
WHAT CHANGED
Evaluate pricing, revenue streams, and capacity economics as connected design decisions.
Translate operating constraints into explicit workflows, automation rules, and transferable processes.
Distinguish operational efficiency from structural scalability—and recognize when a business model needs redesign rather than further optimization.
Study Smart proved the commercial model could work. Its limitations taught me to design earlier for the people, processes, and systems required to operate beyond the founder.
NEXT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
INDEPENDENT ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK / 02 · REVENUE GOVERNANCE & SYSTEMS DESIGN
How I architected Handoff Audit™ and the Trust Velocity Framework—a 10-day diagnostic methodology designed to map and evaluate post-sale margin erosion risk across Sales, Onboarding, and Delivery.
Evidence Note: The 12–18% range represents a projected margin erosion risk benchmark associated with unvalidated commercial commitments, scope expansion, and unplanned delivery concessions. It is not an observed client result or verified financial savings.
01 / THE INVISIBLE REVENUE LEAK
In complex B2B services and enterprise implementations, early 90-day churn and margin compression frequently originate at the transition between Sales, Onboarding, and Delivery.
Commercial context stays trapped in CRM notes or sales calls. Clients are forced to repeat discovery during kickoff. Unvalidated commercial promises turn into unbilled scope creep, and founders or VPs are pulled back into daily operations to unblock stalled accounts.
“Companies lose trust when the client has to repeat information, ask for status, clarify who owns the next step, or discover that what was sold never reached the team delivering it.”
| Operational Symptom | Modeled Financial Exposure |
|---|---|
| Client repeating discovery at kickoff | 6–12 hours of senior engineering/delivery rework per project |
| Time-to-First-Value (TTFV) > 14 days | Delayed value perception & elevated 90-day churn risk |
| Unvalidated commercial promises | 12%–18% projected gross margin erosion risk via concessions |
| Founder/COO unblocking basic handoffs | Executive capacity diverted to preventable routing failures |
02 / THE METHODOLOGICAL ENGINE
To replace subjective operational opinions with structured telemetry, I designed the Trust Velocity Framework. It evaluates the rate at which customer trust accumulates or erodes post-signature across four weighted structural dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Governing Question |
|---|---|---|
| Intake Completeness | 30% | Does the system capture what the downstream operator needs to act—not just what Sales needs to close? |
| Status Visibility | 30% | Can the client observe progress autonomously without initiating a status-check message? |
| Ownership Clarity | 25% | Does every state transition have a single accountable owner with the authority to resolve exceptions? |
| Next-Step Protocol | 15% | Does every touchpoint close with a defined future action, explicit SLA deadline, and owner? |
Evaluated across a 40-point Signal Matrix, the operation receives a composite Trust Velocity Score (0.0 to 10.0), classifying the workflow into Critical Risk (0.0–3.9), Unstable (4.0–6.9), or Governed/Stable (7.0–10.0).
03 / DIAGNOSTIC TAXONOMY
Every friction point uncovered in CRM logs, communication threads, and project trackers is codified into one of six failure classes:
Critical business context evaporates between sales closure and onboarding kickoff, forcing repetitive client discovery.
Cross-departmental issues fall into an accountability vacuum until the client escalates to executive leadership.
Internal teams lack real-time state visibility; the customer discovers operational delays before the account manager does.
Delivery teams execute without visibility into custom commercial concessions or verbal SLA commitments made during closing.
Billing, invoicing, and contract milestones operate asynchronously from project delivery states, stalling active work.
Sensitive client credentials and PII circulate across unencrypted chat channels without access governance or purge rules.
04 / OPERATING MODEL & SCALE
Applying the architectural lessons from Study Smart, I designed the Handoff Audit™ operating model so data processing would not depend solely on founder hours.
1. Stack-Agnostic Read-Only Ingestion (Days 1–4): Under NDA, an analyst extracts structured exports from the existing stack (HubSpot, Pipedrive, Salesforce, ClickUp, Monday, Notion, Slack) with zero software migrations required.
2. AI-Assisted Evidence Classification (Days 5–7): Automated scripts and LLM pipelines clean raw communication logs and pre-classify failures against the 40-point Signal Matrix in a controlled internal environment. AI never interacts with the client directly; it accelerates analyst triage while preserving human judgment for root-cause synthesis.
3. Executive Readout (Days 8–10): Presentation of modeled financial exposure and immediate remediation rules directly to leadership.
05 / TRADE-OFFS & REJECTED ARCHITECTURES
To ensure the diagnostic can be executed within 10 business days without disrupting frontline operations, the framework enforces three architectural trade-offs:
Rejected: Prescribing CRM/PM platform migrations (e.g., forcing a move from ClickUp to Jira or HubSpot to Salesforce).
Decision: Constrained all 3-Step Remediation Blueprints to execute strictly inside incumbent tools via required-field gates, webhook triggers, and SLA ownership rules—avoiding multi-month change-management resistance.
Rejected: Installing persistent third-party tracking agents or write-access webhooks into production databases during the diagnostic window.
Decision: Standardized on asynchronous read-only exports, trading off real-time streaming telemetry to bypass security procurement bottlenecks.
Rejected: Offering a self-serve AI chatbot or automated dashboard to interpret handoff failures.
Decision: Restricted LLMs strictly to backstage log parsing and taxonomy pre-tagging, requiring human validation before presenting findings to leadership.
06 / EXECUTIVE DELIVERABLES
Diagnostic blueprint classifying handoff failures by taxonomy code, empirical evidence, and severity.
Snapshot of active accounts scored 1–5 on visibility, phase duration, and SLA breach alerts.
Formal ledger of every cross-functional transition step lacking a single accountable owner.
Inventory of operational bottlenecks translated into estimated monthly margin exposure and delivery rework hours.
Three prioritized structural fixes specifying exact business rules, current-stack configuration changes, owners, and deadlines.
EXPLORE FURTHER
