Gross margin and volume decide the outcome; interest rates and FX matter, but less. The model is most exposed to the variables management most directly controls.

Scenario construction

• Base: the considered central case, 37% revenue CAGR, blended margin ~19%, disciplined working capital.
• Downside (individually plausible): ~10% lower volumes, a slower ramp, ~1.2pts lower margin and mild working-capital drag. Survivable within the committed facility, but returns compress to ~6% IRR and facility utilisation reaches ~90%.
• Stress (severe tail): demand, margin, rate and working-capital shocks combined. The facility is exhausted, a residual funding gap of ~R25–30m emerges, and equity is fully impaired, the case the standby equity contingency exists to address.
• Upside: stronger demand and attach, better margin and tighter working capital, Year-5 EBITDA of R68m and an IRR near 59%.

Management implication. Because gross margin and volume dominate, management effort is rightly concentrated on mix discipline (defending margin) and channel execution (defending volume). FX and rates, while material, are managed through hedging and facility structuring rather than through the operating plan.

Single-variable sensitivity — Year-5 EBITDA

Holding all else at base, the table isolates the effect of moving each key driver one increment in each direction. It shows both what the business is most exposed to and how much cushion the base case carries.

Table 36. Single-variable sensitivity on Year-5 EBITDA (base ~R41m). Margin and volume are the dominant levers.