Working Arrangement Framework

Why this needs its own document

Scarlet and Nicole are not in a straightforward client-contractor relationship: they never have been. The actual structure of their working life together spans:

• Scarlet doing operational and strategic work that looks like a fractional COO
• Scarlet producing client-facing deliverables under Nicole's name as a subcontractor
• Scarlet contributing to commercial relationships that generate commissions Nicole receives

Each of these is a different type of exchange. Each deserves its own structure, its own rate logic, and its own transparency, so the relationship stays clean, stays fair, and stays honest on both sides as it grows.

This document names the three buckets, proposes a rate structure for each, and gives both parties the language to have the money conversation clearly, without the awkwardness that accumulates when it isn't named.

The relationship context

Scarlet and Nicole are family. The relationship predates the commercial one, and it will outlast any specific project or arrangement. That is a reason to get this more right, not less, because a vague "we'll work it out" sits inside a relationship that matters too much to let it silently accumulate resentment or confusion.

The same principle from the TLIS pricing rubric applies here:

Both parties should be able to look at this framework and say: yes, that's honest. That reflects what's actually happening. And I'd be comfortable if Nicole or Scarlet referred this to someone else as an example of how they work together.

The three buckets

Bucket 1 · Ongoing Retainer (Fractional COO + Chief of Staff Layer)

The ongoing layer of Scarlet's work with Nicole that isn't tied to a specific client project. This is the ambient, relational, operational work that enables everything else. It includes:

• EA and operational support · comms triage, calendar management, ClickUp setup and management, admin systems
• PR and thought leadership execution · LinkedIn strategy and content, media positioning, content calendar, brand coherence
• Strategic and coaching advisory · helping Nicole think, plan, articulate, decide, and navigate (the "genius advisor" role)
• Administrative and systems operations · Finance Portal, processes, handoffs, document management

This work is nearly impossible to scope project-by-project because it is relational, ambient, and ongoing. It is also the highest-leverage thing Scarlet does for Nicole: it is the work that makes all the other modes of Nicole's revenue architecture possible. Treating it as informal, or subsuming it quietly into project costs, hides its value and creates a structural incentive to underdeliver.

Note: These rates reflect TLIS's standard commercial rate for retainer advisory work, with a relational modifier already applied. The commercial rate for an embedded fractional COO at this scope, through a strategic consultancy, would be $8,000 to $12,000/month. This is Scarlet's commercial rate and Nicole's relational rate, side by side and transparent.

For Nicole's reference: TLIS commercial rate for this scope is approximately $8,000 to $10,000/month. The relational rate is $2,500 to $6,500/month depending on tier, because of the relationship, because Nicole is a calibration client for the studio's own model, and because the mutual value exchange extends well beyond the transactional.

Project work (Bucket 2), commission contributions (Bucket 3), or any deliverable with a defined external client-facing scope. Those are separate and separately priced.

When the retainer scope exceeds the agreed tier, the conversation about expanding happens immediately, not at year end, not in resentment. Scope creep is named and priced, not absorbed.

Bucket 2 · Project Subcontractor

When Nicole wins a scoped client engagement (a government contract, a facilitation program, a strategic assessment, a proposal process) and the work requires production capacity that Scarlet can deliver, Scarlet is brought in as a named subcontractor. The scope is defined, the deliverable is defined, and the cost is separate from the retainer.

• Research, synthesis, and writing for client-facing deliverables (board papers, strategy documents, reports, frameworks)
• Proposal and RFQ response production
• Presentation and slide content
• Post-engagement write-ups, supporting tools, client-ready materials
• Content and copy that goes to Nicole's clients under Nicole's name

Project work has a defined scope, a defined deliverable, and a defined client. It should be priced per that scope, not absorbed into the retainer as "part of the relationship" or done informally. Nicole's project revenue is generated partly by Scarlet's production. That contribution should be visible, priced, and respected.

Scarlet is subcontracted at Nicole's active project rate: the same rate Nicole is billing the client for equivalent work.

• Current standard rate: $400/hr ex GST (aligned to Nicole's LandGate rate)
• From 2027: $450 to $500/hr, tracking Nicole's own rate trajectory

The work Scarlet delivers under this bucket goes directly to Nicole's clients and represents Nicole's quality standard. Pricing Scarlet at a discount to Nicole's client rate creates a hidden margin that isn't acknowledged, and implicitly treats Scarlet's time as less valuable than Nicole's for equivalent production work. Using the same rate is honest.

Practical note on margin: Nicole's margin on Bucket 2 work comes from her strategic oversight, client relationship, and the work she does that Scarlet doesn't, not from paying Scarlet below her contribution rate.

Scarlet does not absorb scope creep silently. If the deliverable expands, the subcontract expands. Both parties agree on the scope before work begins, even informally by message, and revisit it if the scope shifts.

Bucket 3 · Commission Partnership

When Nicole's commission-based advisory relationships (Biome, Echo, and future equivalents) generate income, and Scarlet's work contributed to that income landing, Scarlet receives a negotiated share of the commission payment.

Scarlet contributes to Nicole's commercial success in ways that don't always attach to a specific project:

• Positioning and PR work that makes Nicole more visible and credible, which leads to commission opportunities
• Content and thought leadership that builds the reputation that opens doors
• Strategic advisory that helps Nicole navigate which commission relationships to pursue and how
• Operational support that frees Nicole's capacity to maintain and nurture those relationships

Commission advisory relationships (Mode 4 in Nicole's Revenue Architecture) are where Nicole's earning potential is most asymmetric. When those relationships succeed, the upside can be significant. Scarlet's contribution to that upside should be named and rewarded, not quietly folded into the retainer as "already included."

Because the nature of Scarlet's contribution will differ across commission relationships, the approach is framework-guided rather than fixed.

Trigger: Commission share is calculated on the payment when it's received, not when the relationship is formed or the agreement signed.

At the start of each commission advisory relationship, Nicole and Scarlet briefly name the expected contribution type and agree a % range. When the commission lands, they apply it. If the contribution was more or less than expected, they true up honestly.

This is not a blanket percentage of Nicole's income. It applies specifically to commission-based modes: Biome-style advisory relationships where Nicole's primary compensation is a success fee or equity outcome. Board fees, hourly consulting, and project work are already accounted for through the retainer and subcontractor buckets.

The rate summary

• Fractional COO / Advisory Retainer: $8,000 to $10,000/month commercial
• Strategic Subcontractor: $450 to $500/hr commercial (2027+)
• Commission advisory contribution: 10 to 20% commercial

The relational logic

Two things should always be true about this arrangement:

First: Scarlet should never be doing work that she is not being fairly compensated for. The moment the retainer scope exceeds what the tier covers, the conversation about expanding it happens immediately, not at year end, not in accumulated silence.

Second: Nicole should always know what she is receiving and at what price. No disguised subsidies, no "I'll just do this one" that silently trains both parties to expect free work.

A useful checkpoint · apply it anytime either party feels uncertain:

• If yes: the arrangement is honest.
• If not: something needs to be named.

The referral story this creates

When this framework is transparent:

• Nicole can say: "Scarlet supports me at a commercial rate of $X, I've negotiated a relational rate of $Y with her, and she contributes to my commission work on the terms we've agreed."
• Scarlet can say: "I work with Nicole at a relational rate because of the relationship and the calibration value · my commercial rate is $Z."
• Anyone Nicole refers to TLIS knows what Scarlet's real rate is, and refers accordingly.

The framework doesn't just protect the working relationship. It builds the referral story that travels.

Things to calibrate (for Nicole and Scarlet)

1. The retainer tier: where does the current working relationship actually sit? Is Foundation right, or is Active already closer to the reality of what Scarlet delivers?
2. The commission share: does this feel right to Nicole? The principle is that Scarlet's contribution to Nicole's commercial upside should have equity in the return: the exact percentages are genuinely open for discussion.
3. The subcontractor rate: using Nicole's project rate is the clean principle. If Nicole's margin needs to look different on specific project types, let's talk about it openly.
4. Bucket stacking: if a project involves both retainer work and discrete deliverables (e.g., Scarlet supports the LandGate relationship under the retainer AND produces specific documents for it), how do the buckets stack or not stack? This should be agreed for each project.
5. Formalisation: does this need a written agreement, or is a shared working document enough? At what point does the value exchange grow to where a simple contract protects both parties?
6. Review cadence: this framework should be revisited every six months and updated as both the relationship and the business evolve. Not renegotiated every time: agreed, documented, and calibrated regularly.