T1–T2W-MISLogisticsRetail

Logistics hub / warehouse siting

Site distribution hubs for coverage without overlap — coverage-conflict, weighted by demand.

Sector

Logistics

Likely buyer

3PLs; retailers; e-commerce

Hardware gate

Weighted → Vela

Taxonomy

cost-prohibitive × accelerating

Ω 9.4 · δ ±12.6 rad/µs · 4000 ns · R_b 9.1 µm

Hubs with overlapping service areas cannibalize; atom size = demand value. Maximize distinct covered demand.

Weighted instance: site values map to per-atom detuning — on hardware this needs Vela-class local addressing. Emulated exactly here.

GTM talk track

'Place the fewest hubs that cover the most demand without cannibalizing each other.'

OGSM — product operating frame

Objective

Demonstrate hub siting on a demand map.

Goals

Strategies

Measures

Horizon	Outcome we create	Buyer behavior change	Result we measure
Now	3PL sees siting on a region	Prospect runs the emulated demo on their own instance data	Booked QPU-time evaluation or paid pilot
Next	3PL benchmarks a network	Prospect co-designs a scoped benchmark against their incumbent solver	Documented crossover curve; expansion to production instances
Later	3PL adopts for planning	Prospect standardizes on the workflow or buys an on-prem system	Recurring QPU consumption / system sale; reference case

Fit notes (honesty gate)

Coverage-conflict; weighted by demand value.

Ready to run this on real hardware?

Emulation-verified today — the same program runs on a Pasqal QPU unchanged.