Estimate independent ways to deliver this proposed ProSwag pilot in USD.
Use current published sources and state the date of your research.

Starting point: a local Node/SQLite/Sharp prototype supports intake,
logo confirmation, comparisons, revisions, version approval and print output.
Customer roles are test fixtures. Cloud persistence and real sign-in are
not connected. A separate private product-photo library already exists.
Review reuse rights and code quality before crediting existing work.

Compare mutually exclusive cumulative paths from a future agreed kickoff:
2 weeks: compare a bounded one-brief/two-product test with an expanded
two-brief/four-product-record test. Each uses one approved logo, up to four
options and one consolidated revision per brief. Local review, printable
mini-catalogs and a comparison with the current process.
4 weeks: total three briefs, six product/color records, one approved CSV
import layout, repeatable operator workflow and recovery/operating notes.
Operator use stays local. No live supplier API or public customer portal.
8 weeks: total six briefs, 25 records, one private workspace and two named
users, including an operator and reviewer. Hosted access is conditional on
runtime, authentication, protected media, persistence and restore checks.
Each brief still has up to four options and one revision. One logo overall.

Inputs: approved artwork and usage rights, product images/specifications,
a representative brief, one feedback owner and timely access decisions.
Acceptance: correct product/logo identity, retained version history,
print output matching the reviewed version, repeatable imports and recovery.
For hosted use, test authorization, session expiry and persistence as well.
Exclude ordering, payments, inventory sync, unrestricted public sign-ups,
a full catalog rollout, production artwork, 24/7 support and assumed IP or
source-code transfer. Hosted-pilot prerequisites must pass before use.

Compare professional firms, independent freelancers and cheaper manual,
static or no-code alternatives. Explain which outcomes each can meet.
Separate published hourly/listing rates, modeled hours and actual quotes.
Give low/base/high assumptions, fees, taxes and uncertainty. Cite URLs.
Model AI/API usage by units, workload and retries using sourced rates.
Separate those charges from subscriptions, labor, hosting and maintenance.
Assume future company work uses company-owned provider accounts/billing.
Do not assume unlimited tools or a particular subscription entitlement.
Explain that METR task horizons do not predict AI runtime or project price.
Do not use any suggested seller fee as an anchor or seek to validate it.