2/ In your bear case, you have 17,640 human-driven ride-hail Teslas coming onto a non-existent Tesla ride-hail network THIS YEAR, contributing $529M in rev. Again, this is your BEAR case. How? The network hasn't even been announced.

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021

4/ Beyond the human-driven network, my main qualm is that your model fails to stagger vehicles coming onto the robotaxi network throughout a year. This is hugely important, and I've never seen ARK model this correctly.

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021

6/ You could evenly weigh monthly mileage (110,000mi/12months), but a more accurate way would be to base it off of the average of each month's contribution to full-year deliveries. Seasonality.

In our models, we even break it out by # of days per month, but it does get tedious. pic.twitter.com/0lwLECdhiD

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021

8/ Essentially, this is what your model (bull case) is assuming for net ride-hail revenue in 2025. pic.twitter.com/lumz44gECz

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021

10/ I'm not nitpicking here. 2025 is an important year for your bull case; you have Tesla somehow selling nearly TWICE AS MANY new cars than all other years COMBINED. That's a different conversation. When you account for seasonality, it has a HUGE effect on your 2025 PT.

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021

12/ Another question: on the ASP tables, what's the reason for changing base assumptions from last year's model? It has quite a big effect on this year's model without explanation (or maybe I'm missing something?). pic.twitter.com/OlQhEsaGZp

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021

13/ Also, check row 84 (max cash deployable given scaling constraint). Columns G-H refer to the wrong cells (even though H is dependent upon 2026 cars producible, which is probably why no one caught it). Small effect on PT (-0.33% for bull).

Just some initial thoughts. pic.twitter.com/kaodljvnBE

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 23, 2021