Executive Decision Record

I've written the decision record as a full Tier 1 record, because it involves a 3-year contract, 34 jobs and a board approval. It's marked

Confidential and

Draft. I checked the numbers I worked out myself: the $0.8M saving is consistent with the quoted per-order prices, and the latest landlord notice date comes out at 1 April 2027.

What the record says

Decision: Option B, Ridgeway with two warehouses (Reno and Columbus), with the move finished by 31 March 2027. It only becomes final once the board approves the contract in October, because it's above Priya's signing authority.

Reasons given in the meeting: 2-day delivery coverage goes from 58% to 91%, it saves about $0.8M a year, it avoids the $1.4M automation spend, and it keeps one way of operating instead of two. Each rejected option (A, C, D) is listed with the reason given for dropping it.

Leo's disagreement: recorded with his words: he "still thinks hybrid is safer." The notes don't say how his concern about unboxing and inserts was answered, so the record says "not recorded" rather than implying it was settled.

• Figures I calculated (labelled as such in the record):
  • The contract commits you to at least $6.3M over its 3-year term.
  • The $2.1M yearly minimum works out to about 243k orders a year, against 690k today.
  • The $0.8M saving doesn't subtract the cost of the move or the staff retention bonuses.
  • If the move finishes on time, there are about 3 months before the Reno lease ends, which is the only buffer if it slips.

Not invented: anything the notes don't give, such as owners, dates or sign-offs, is marked NOT PROVIDED. The record lists 11 open questions for Priya at the end.

Questions that need an answer before filing:
1.

Record number: I used

DR-2026-015, reading DR-2026-014 as the last number used. If 014 is actually the next free number, it's a one-line change.
2.

Landlord notice has no owner or date. The latest date is about 1 April 2027 (check the lease wording). The timing matters: it should probably wait until the board approves and the contract is signed, and come after staff are told, so the news doesn't reach them through the landlord.
3.

Hannah's staff plan has no due date. It has to be ready before peak 2026 to do its job. The date staff are told is also when the Confidential label gets reviewed.
4.

Board timing: does the October board meeting fall after Tomas's 15 October contract deadline, so the board sees the final terms?
5.

Do the numbers compare like for like? It's not clear that Ridgeway's 91% "coverage" is measured the same way as your 58% "of customers," or that $8.65 includes the same costs as your "fully loaded" $9.80.

Two smaller points: the notes only gave one condition that would reopen the decision (the board saying no), so I added four more marked as suggestions for Priya to keep or delete. I also suggested counsel check whether any legal layoff-notice rules apply to the Reno staff.

File

This is the only copy; I didn't add the row to your actual decision index. Priya should review it before it's filed, and the board approval wording needs counsel or the company secretary.

---

The file it wrote: DR-2026-015-fulfillment-move-to-ridgeway.md

Decision Record

CONFIDENTIAL — do not distribute beyond the named recipients until the 34 Reno warehouse staff have been told.
DRAFT — Priya Lindqvist has not yet confirmed this record. The contract still needs board approval (October 2026 board meeting).

Source: exec team meeting notes, 14 September 2026, including Hannah Osei's pre-read. The record was drafted on 1 October 2026 from those notes, so it is a contemporaneous record, not a retrospective one. Source tags:

[PR] pre-read ·

[OPT] options discussed ·

[DISC] discussion ·

[DEC] decision ·

[AI] action items ·

[SM] success measures. Anything marked Derived is arithmetic on the source figures and was not said in the meeting.

Decision Header

---

Context

Background

• One in-house warehouse in Reno ships 100% of orders [PR].
• Only 58% of US customers get 2-day ground delivery [PR].
• Fully loaded cost per order is $9.80 [PR].
• Volume is about 690k orders a year [DISC — Tomas].
• There are 34 warehouse staff [PR].

Problem Statement

Fulfillment from a single west-coast node is too slow for east-coast customers. It is also costly ($9.80 per order) and fragile at peak. The Reno lease ends on 30 June 2027, which forces a choice between recommitting to the in-house model and changing it [PR].

Triggering Events

• The Reno lease ends 30 June 2027. It requires 90 days' notice of non-renewal [PR, AI-3].
• Peak 2025 caused a 6-day backlog and roughly 1,900 customer complaints [PR].

Stakeholders Affected

• The 34 Reno warehouse staff (their roles end with the in-house operation) [PR, DISC — Hannah]
• Customers, especially on the east coast (delivery speed) [PR, AI-4]
• Growth / brand (control of unboxing and inserts, which drive repeat purchase) [DISC — Leo]
• Finance (per-order cost, capex avoided, contract minimum) [DISC — Tomas]
• The board (contract approval) [DEC]
• The Reno landlord (non-renewal notice) [AI-3]
• Ridgeway Fulfillment Partners (counterparty) [OPT]

Timeline / Urgency

Derived: about 3 months of lease overlap remain between cutover (31 Mar) and lease end (30 Jun). This is the only buffer if the cutover slips.

Constraints

• Cutover must come after peak 2026 [DEC].
• The contract is above the CEO's signing authority, so it needs the board [DEC].
• The lease requires 90 days' notice of non-renewal [AI-3].
• The Reno operation must keep enough staff to get through peak 2026 [DISC — Hannah].

---

Options Considered

Option A: Stay in-house — renew the Reno lease and add $1.4M of pick automation

Description: Keep the current model, renew the lease, and invest $1.4M in pick automation [OPT].

Resource requirements: $1.4M automation capex plus a lease renewal (renewal terms NOT PROVIDED)
Cost per order after automation: NOT PROVIDED
Risk assessment: NOT DISCUSSED. Coverage stays at today's 58% (derived, because the option adds no node).
Stakeholder preference: NONE RECORDED

Option B: Ridgeway Fulfillment Partners, two nodes (Reno + Columbus) — SELECTED

Description: Outsource all fulfillment to Ridgeway, run from Reno and Columbus [OPT].

Resource requirements: $8.65 per order; $2.1M annual minimum over a 3-year term [OPT]. Transition costs and retention-bonus costs: NOT PROVIDED.
Derived: the minimum commitment over the full term is at least $6.3M. The $2.1M minimum equals about 243k orders a year at $8.65, against about 690k today.
Derived check on Tomas's figure: ($9.80 − $8.65) × 690k = $793.5k, which matches "about $0.8M". This figure is gross. It does not net off transition or retention costs.
Risk assessment: The risks discussed were contract lock-in (addressed by the termination clause, AI-1), staff retention through peak (AI-2), and brand control of unboxing and inserts (Leo — not resolved in the notes). No formal risk rating was given.
Stakeholder preference: Chosen by Priya [DEC]. Tomas's and Hannah's stated reasons for rejecting D support it [DISC].

Option C: Ridgeway single node (Reno only)

Description: Outsource to Ridgeway's Reno node only [OPT].

Resource requirements: $8.20 per order. Term and minimum: NOT PROVIDED.
Risk assessment: NOT DISCUSSED
Stakeholder preference: NONE RECORDED

Option D: Hybrid — keep Reno in-house, use Ridgeway Columbus for east-coast orders only

Description: Keep the in-house Reno operation and send east-coast orders to Ridgeway's Columbus node [OPT].

Resource requirements: NOT PROVIDED (no cost per order, coverage figure, or lease or capex implications recorded)
Risk assessment: NOT DISCUSSED
Stakeholder preference:

Leo Marchetti's preference [OPT]. He still held it after the decision (see Dissenting Views).

---

Decision

Selected Option

Option B: Ridgeway Fulfillment Partners, two nodes (Reno + Columbus). Cutover complete by 31 March 2027, after peak [DEC]. The decision depends on board approval of the contract at the October 2026 board meeting [DEC].

Rationale

Each reason below is one that was given in the meeting.
1.

It fixes delivery speed. Coverage rises from 58% to 91% [PR, OPT]. A and C were rejected because they don't do this [DISC].
2. It lowers cost. The saving is about $0.8M a year at current volume (690k orders) [DISC — Tomas].
3. It avoids capex. It removes the $1.4M automation spend [DISC — Tomas].
4.

It runs one operating model, not two. This avoids the doubled management overhead of the hybrid [DISC — Tomas, Hannah].
5. The timing protects peak. Cutover comes after peak 2026 and before the lease ends on 30 June 2027 [DEC, PR].

What We're NOT Doing (and Why)

Not A (stay in-house + $1.4M automation): capex with no coverage gain; it does not fix east-coast delivery times [DISC, OPT — Hannah].

• Not C (Ridgeway Reno only): coverage stays near 60%, so delivery speed is not fixed [DISC, OPT].
• Not D (hybrid): two operating models double the management overhead [DISC — Tomas, Hannah]. Leo still disagrees.

Key Assumptions

These underpin the figures cited. The notes do not record them being discussed as assumptions.

• Volume stays near 690k orders a year. The $0.8M saving is calculated at that volume [DISC].
• Ridgeway's quote ($8.65 per order, 91% coverage) holds in the final contract [OPT].
• Ridgeway's 91% "2-day ground coverage" is measured the same way as our 58% of "US customers getting 2-day ground". Not verified — see Open Questions.
• An acceptable termination-for-convenience clause can be negotiated [DISC — Tomas, AI-1].
• Enough Reno staff stay through peak 2026 [DISC — Hannah].
• The board approves the contract in October [DEC].

Conditions That Would Change This Decision

• Recorded: the board does not approve the contract [DEC].
• Not recorded in the notes. The following are proposed for Priya to confirm or strike:
  • No acceptable termination-for-convenience clause by 15 Oct 2026
  • Final contract terms differ materially from the quote ($8.65 per order / 91% / $2.1M minimum)
  • Ridgeway cannot meet our unboxing and insert requirements (Leo's concern)
  • Volume forecast falls enough to erode the saving or approach the $2.1M minimum

---

Implementation

Action Items

Action 5 comes from the Decision passage, not the action-item list.

Communication Plan

Success Metrics

• 2-day ground coverage at 90% or above by Q3 2027 [SM]
• Cost per order below $9.00 by Q3 2027 [SM]
• Baselines today: 58% coverage and $9.80 per order [PR]
• Owner of the measurement: NOT PROVIDED
• No metric was set for peak-2026 staff retention, cutover quality, or repeat-purchase impact (Leo's concern). NOT PROVIDED.

Review Date

NOT PROVIDED. See Open Question 8.

---

Approvals

Dissenting Views

Leo Marchetti (VP Growth) argued for Option D (hybrid). His worry is losing control of unboxing and inserts, which drive repeat purchase. After the decision he said he

"still thinks hybrid is safer" [DISC].
How it was addressed: NOT RECORDED. The notes give the overhead reason for rejecting D. They do not record any response to the unboxing and inserts concern, such as packaging or insert requirements in the Ridgeway contract.

---

Metadata

---

Registry Row

---

Open Questions

Decision ID. Is DR-2026-014 the last ID issued, which makes this one

DR-2026-015 (used here)? Or is 014 itself the next free ID?
2.

Board date. When is the October board meeting? Does it fall after Tomas's 15 Oct contract deadline, so the board sees final terms?
3.

Termination clause. If Ridgeway won't agree an acceptable termination-for-convenience clause, does that reopen the decision or only delay signing?
4.

Leo's dissent. How will the unboxing and inserts concern be handled? For example, should packaging and insert specs and quality checks be written into the Ridgeway contract? Should a repeat-purchase metric be added?
5.

Landlord notice. Who owns it, and on what date? The latest is about 1 Apr 2027 per the 90-day clause (confirm against the lease wording). Should it wait for board approval and contract signing? Should it come after the staff are told, so the news doesn't reach staff through the landlord first?
6.

Staff plan. When is Hannah's transition and retention plan due? What is the retention-bonus budget? When will staff be told, given that this date ends the Confidential classification? Should counsel confirm whether any statutory layoff-notice rules (e.g., WARN) apply?
7.

Comparability of figures. Is the 91% Ridgeway coverage measured the same way as our 58%? Is $8.65 directly comparable to our "fully loaded" $9.80? Should the $0.8M saving be restated net of transition and retention costs?
8.

Review date. Suggestion: one checkpoint after the board meeting and contract signing, one after cutover (April 2027), and a full review against the success metrics at the end of Q3 2027. Please confirm or replace.
9. Conditions that would change the decision. Should Priya confirm or strike the proposed conditions above?
10.

Distribution. Who besides the four attendees should receive this Confidential record (e.g., the board pack, legal)? Who will maintain it in the registry?
11.

Contingency. Was a fallback discussed if the cutover slips past 31 Mar 2027? Only about 3 months of lease overlap remain.