Your core value proposition is contradictory. You claim to be a seamless, API-first platform, but your go-to-market is based on a high-friction model of uploading dirty spreadsheets. This isn't a bridge; it's two different businesses. One scales, the other is a service company in disguise.
The biggest risk is behavioral. You assume shipowners, under regulatory pressure, will do the hard work of fixing their internal data processes to use your software. It's more likely they'll stick with the familiar consultant who promises to 'handle it,' even if it's less efficient. You're betting against inertia, which is almost always a losing bet.
What happens when your first major client, with a fleet of 200 ships, says your system is too rigid and demands you build custom tools to clean their specific 'dirty data' or they walk? Your answer to that question defines whether you are a product company or a consulting firm.
his is a solution looking for a problem that is still emerging. The premise that regulation will force operational discipline is compelling, but you have no evidence it will happen at scale. You're selling a vision of the future based on the behavior of two small clients.
You have a small wedge into a niche, regulated market. But your product seems replicable. Being the 'gatekeeper' for compliance is a powerful position if you can hold it, but there's no proprietary tech lock-in here.
Your core insight—that new regulations shift compliance from a reporting task to a high-stakes financial liability, breaking the old consultant model—is strong. This is a non-obvious truth about the market.
You're building an ETL pipeline and a dashboard. This is not a new creation; it's an application of existing technology to a new regulatory vertical. The workflow is novel, but the technology is not.