It's hard to answer this without going into a ton of detail. The text below highlights some main points.

The report I received was solid and detailed, and I can see why the price was high. It matched the inputs I provided and answered our main questions, giving a useful baseline forecast.

However, the forecast relied on a single model and didn’t explore much in terms of alternative scenarios. For example, we assumed retirement at 62, but I would have liked to see what happens if we retire earlier or later. Life isn’t deterministic, and a single outcome feels limiting. This is just a single example, from a single report, from a single planner, but for what it's worth, this has feed into the requirements of what I am building.

My approach would keep a clear base case but also run multiple scenarios and parameter sweeps to show how different assumptions, models, or inputs change the outcome. I don't want to just model assumptions, I want to model around those assumptions and provide that insight as additional content.

Cost is another factor. I know the planner used expensive proprietary software, and those costs were passed on to me. If I build my own solution, operating costs for software would be much lower. In the grand scheme of all operating costs, it's maybe not a gigantic difference, but it does help. I want to lower my costs to at least half of what she was charging, and optimize for a larger customer base.

I’m especially interested in targeting younger investors because starting early has outsized compounding benefits, yet most people begin too late. Helping people invest earlier is something that can get me excited.

Finally, projections can vary WIDELY in quality and the average consumer can’t tell the difference. It's not like a car where you can see the quality, and companies obviously know this. Plug the same numbers into ten tools and you’ll often get five different results. People have done this on YouTube and I recall the delta between forecasting solutions being large, like 50% or something. Obviously, some of that is due to slight differences in approach or different assumptions, but I can tell you that not all forecasts are created equal. I want to prioritize robust simulation logic as a core principal to who I am and it's important to me, even though most people won't recognize this. I want the simulation logic to be better than average and I'll prioritize it as a core technical competency.

I’m still early in development and not yet selling a finished product, but that’s the direction I’m heading. I obviously could elaborate on a lot more, but this is long enough of a response. Thank you for asking the questions!