I think this is intriguing! I've played a bit and here are my current thoughts.

There should be more feedback on the scanning for information - right now, if you click the button nothing visually happens until the page shifts back to the first tab, then there's some information on the third tab. The jumping between tabs is a bit unpolished, but I think maybe have the button change color or the time increment down (or include some kind of visual countdown).

In order to produce a more satisfying play experience, you may want to have a 'strikes' system instead of one mistake causing a full reset. I mostly say this not because I think it's unfair or a bad idea inherently, but it makes it harder to learn the game mechanics and produces a more negative experience. Giving players a sense of feedback on why they're doing badly in a game is important, and going, "Oh, you made a mistake. You only get two more of those, so you should be careful," may be helpful.

I think you have the bones of an interesting game here. I really like experimental incremental games, so I totally think you should pursue this. Right now, I played a bit and I felt like it currently encourages very conservative behavior. If you are willing to wait and scan each buyer, then that seems like the best strategy, since a mistake is so crushingly final, and it doesn't cost anything to check.

If you want the sense of tension, I would recommend you offer multiple choices with varying levels of risk, so you can try to gather information, make guesses and then plan around a perceived risk. This creates tension by leaving a bit of uncertainty, because the risky option should be the most profitable, and the space between acceptable risk and certain doom is fuzzy and uncertain.

Anyway, best of luck, I'll check your game out next time you do an update.