How should we structure our product launch to marketing handoff? What are the critical GTM decisions: positioning, channel mix, pricing, launch timing, and marketing budget allocation?

The handoff structure must be product-led with marketing as amplifier, not driver. Critical decisions cascade: positioning (defensible differentiation) → timing (market readiness + competitive window) → pricing (value-based, not cost-plus) → channels (where your ICP actually buys) → budget (concentrate fire on 2-3 channels, not spray). The CEO's role is locking these decisions before launch, not iterating post-launch—every day of misalignment costs millions in wasted spend and momentum.

A structured product launch to marketing handoff is non-negotiable for growth. The critical GTM decisions you listed—positioning, channel mix, pricing, launch timing, and budget allocation—are the only variables that determine CAC, viral coefficient, and unit economics. Without a data-driven framework for these decisions, you're gambling with runway and user acquisition. The handoff must be tight: product ships with built-in metrics instrumentation, marketing has pre-validated messaging and channel hypotheses, and both teams align on Day 1 KPIs (activation rate, retention curve, payback period).

A structured handoff requires pre-launch alignment on positioning and channel mix (decided by product + marketing together), with pricing and budget allocation locked 60-90 days before launch to allow channel activation. Launch timing should be market-driven (competitive windows, seasonal demand) rather than calendar-driven, with marketing budget front-loaded 40% to awareness/demand generation and 60% distributed across conversion and retention based on channel unit economics. The critical failure mode is product teams launching without marketing having 8+ weeks to build demand infrastructure—handoff must happen at feature-lock, not at go-live.

The swarm has crystallized the right framework. CFO and CTO are correct that unit economics and technical readiness are prerequisites—but that's not a reason to oppose structure, it's a reason to enforce it earlier. The handoff structure I advocated for requires those inputs locked 60-90 days pre-launch (board_intel nailed this). Board_growth's point on instrumentation and Day 1 KPIs is critical—you can't optimize what you don't measure. My conviction strengthens: the real failure mode isn't the framework, it's teams that skip the pre-launch alignment phase because they think they can iterate live. You can't. The window closes fast.

The CEO and Growth leads are correct that a structured handoff framework is essential—but only if it's anchored to unit economics, not process theater. Their emphasis on pre-launch alignment (60-90 days, locked decisions, instrumentation) directly addresses the cash burn risk I flagged. However, I'm upgrading from neutral to support with lower confidence because they're still treating positioning/pricing/timing as strategic choices when they're actually financial constraints. The handoff works only if every decision is validated against CAC payback and LTV:CAC ratio—which none of them explicitly quantified.

The board consensus reveals a critical insight I underweighted: the handoff structure itself is the forcing function for making these GTM decisions rigorously, not optional. CEO's point on "locking decisions before launch, not iterating post-launch" is operationally sound—misalignment during launch burns cash and credibility. Intel's 60-90 day pre-launch window and Growth's instrumentation requirement are architecturally correct. However, I'm upgrading to support with a caveat: this only works if CFO's unit economics constraints are actually solved first. The structure is sound; the execution risk is teams treating this as a planning exercise rather than a resource-allocation war. My addition: the technical GTM spec (API capacity, data pipeline, feature flags for gradual rollout) must be a blocking dependency in this handoff, not an afterthought—most launches fail on infrastructure, not positioning.

The board_ceo and board_intel perspectives strengthen my position—they add critical sequencing I should have emphasized: positioning and channel mix must be decided together by product + marketing (not siloed), pricing locked 60-90 days pre-launch, and timing driven by competitive windows, not calendars. However, board_cfo and board_cto expose a real tension: the framework for structured handoff is universally correct, but the inputs (unit economics, runway, technical readiness) are company-specific. My confidence stays high because the structure itself—locked decisions, pre-validated messaging, Day 1 KPI alignment, 6-week technical spec buffer—is non-negotiable regardless of whether your CAC payback is 6 months or 18 months. The failure mode both CFO and CTO hint at is real: teams skip the discipline and pay in wasted spend. I'm not changing position because structure + discipline beats ad-hoc optimization every time, even with incomplete data.

The board consensus validates the core thesis—structured handoff is essential—but CFO and CTO correctly flag that execution depends on unit economics and technical readiness data. I'm upgrading confidence because the debate surfaces the critical sequencing: positioning/timing are product-market decisions (CEO + Intel aligned), but channel mix and budget allocation are contingent on CFO's unit economics (CAC/LTV ratio, margin %, runway). The handoff structure itself remains non-negotiable; what changes is the input data required before locking decisions. Growth's emphasis on Day 1 KPIs and CTO's 6-week technical spec requirement are operational details I underweighted—both are blocking dependencies for marketing activation.