Document begins

EPIC Overview — Bottom Pub Co-op

Internal | Last updated: 2026-06-04

This document is the steering view of the project’s EPIC structure. Each EPIC is an independent workstream with its own acceptance criteria. Update status here when work moves.

Status key

EPIC board

Critical path (Stage 1 → Stage 2 boundary)

Property status confirmed (AR-05)
    └─► EPIC-007 (Decision Gates) gates Stage 2 entry
            ├─ EPIC-002 (Legal) → unlocks capital design
            ├─ EPIC-003 (Licensing) → confirms venue viability
            ├─ EPIC-004 (Finance) → depends on legal structure
            └─ EPIC-005 (Governance) → depends on legal structure

EPICs 001 and 006 run as continuous guardrails across all stages. EPICs 008 and 009 are infrastructure — not on the critical path, but reduce maintenance risk as the site grows. EPIC-009’s Phase 0 spike determines whether it supersedes EPIC-008.

Open cross-EPIC risks

How to use this board

• Assign an owner to each EPIC when a steering committee member takes it on.
• Update status at each fortnightly check-in.
• Do not mark an EPIC complete unless acceptance criteria in its own file are met.
• Do not start EPIC-004 or EPIC-005 before EPIC-002 produces its options paper.

EPIC-001 — Stage Discipline and Public Messaging

Problem

The short proposal correctly frames the project as an early idea, but the long operating model jumps ahead into investor returns, exact salaries, and long-term outcomes.

Goal

Keep all public-facing material aligned to Stage 1: gauging interest.

Tasks

• Audit all public copy for stage leakage.
• Add “not an investment offer” language.
• Create public FAQ.
• Create message hierarchy.
• Create review checklist for future public releases.

Acceptance criteria

• No public draft claims purchase feasibility, investor returns, fixed capital requirements, or guaranteed governance structure.
• All future-facing claims use careful conditional language.
• Public copy remains warm and inviting, not legalistic sludge.

EPIC-002 — Legal Structure and Co-op Rules

Problem

The proposal blends distributing/non-distributing co-op features, community benefit, member rebates, investor returns, and democratic control without a settled legal structure.

Goal

Prepare an options paper for professional legal review.

Tasks

• Compare distributing vs non-distributing co-op implications.
• Define possible active-membership models.
• Identify constraints on shareholding and voting.
• Draft solicitor questions.
• Map consequences for surplus, rebates, grants, and investor capital.

Acceptance criteria

• Options are clearly separated from recommendations.
• Each option lists benefits, risks, unanswered questions, and professional-review needs.
• No legal conclusion is presented as final without advice.

EPIC-003 — Liquor Licensing and Regulatory Pathway

Problem

Tasmanian liquor licensing appears to require an individual licence-holder, not a company/trust. The co-op model must account for this.

Goal

Build a licensing/regulatory pathway memo.

Tasks

• Verify Tasmanian licence-holder requirements.
• Identify licence type likely required.
• Determine transfer vs new application questions.
• Map RSA, effective control, community-interest, food, planning, and public-notice requirements.
• Prepare questions for licensing adviser.

Acceptance criteria

• Licensing assumptions are sourced.
• Memo distinguishes confirmed rules from questions.
• Proposal wording avoids implying the co-op itself can simply hold/run the licence.

EPIC-004 — Financial Model and Capital Stack

Problem

The current long document contains fixed financial claims without enough assumptions or due diligence.

Goal

Replace false precision with an assumptions-first financial framework.

Tasks

• Build acquisition/capex/working-capital assumption categories.
• Build conservative/base/upside scenario template.
• Identify revenue drivers: bar, food, events, accommodation, memberships.
• Identify cost drivers: wages, COGS, utilities, insurance, repairs, debt service.
• Create capital-stack options list: member shares, grants, loans, debentures, donations, social finance.
• Remove fixed returns from public material.

Acceptance criteria

• No forecast is presented without assumptions.
• All numbers are labelled as placeholder, estimate, source-backed, or verified.
• Investor-return language is quarantined for professional advice.

EPIC-005 — Governance Architecture

Problem

The proposal has a strong ownership/management distinction, but the decision-rights model needs tightening.

Goal

Create a governance architecture that locals can understand and professionals can implement.

Tasks

• Create role map: members, board, publican, staff, worker members, investors, committees/circles.
• Create decision-rights matrix.
• Resolve investor board-seat tension.
• Define what members vote on and do not vote on.
• Define escalation pathways for ideas and concerns.

Acceptance criteria

• Governance model prevents operational micromanagement.
• Democratic control remains clear.
• Investor influence is limited and transparent.
• Public-facing version is simple enough for a community meeting.

EPIC-006 — Case Study and Evidence Base

Problem

The long document uses examples and numbers that may be persuasive but need verification.

Goal

Create a verified evidence base.

Tasks

• Verify each named case study.
• Separate direct analogues from loose inspiration.
• Prefer official sources.
• Add caveats for UK/non-Australian examples.
• Remove unverified claims.

Acceptance criteria

• Every public case-study claim has a source.
• Unverified examples are removed or marked internal-only.
• Comparative evidence is not overstated.

EPIC-007 — Due Diligence and Decision Gates

Problem

The proposal needs a disciplined pathway from idea to feasibility to possible acquisition.

Goal

Define staged decision gates.

Tasks

• Create stage-gate roadmap.
• Define evidence required at each stage.
• Define go/no-go criteria.
• Define roles for steering group, advisers, and community meetings.
• Create a public progress dashboard outline.

Acceptance criteria

• No stage proceeds without evidence requirements.
• Go/no-go decisions are explicit.
• Community trust is protected through transparent reporting.