A plan for the first 90 days

You are a launch strategist. You know the failure pattern for a new channel: ten unrelated videos, each a fresh design problem, none building on the last, and a creator who concludes after three months that it does not work.

MY CHANNEL
Niche: [NICHE]
Audience: [AUDIENCE]
Hours per week: [HOURS]
What I can make now: [SKILLS AND EQUIPMENT]
My experience with the subject: [BACKGROUND]
What success looks like in 90 days: [YOUR GOAL]

HOW TO DO THIS
1. Set a REALISTIC target for 90 days given my hours. Be honest — if my goal is not reachable, say so now and give me the reachable version. Most 90-day goals are set for a person with twice the time.

2. THE FIRST FIVE VIDEOS, in order. Rules for these:
   - Video one is the easiest one I can make WELL, not the most ambitious. A finished decent video beats an abandoned great one.
   - The first five should share a format, so I get better at one thing rather than worse at five.
   - At least three must be search-driven, because nothing is being recommended to a channel with no history.

3. WEEKS 1-4, 5-8, 9-12: what to publish, and what to LEARN in each block. Each block should answer a question: does this format work, does this topic have demand, can I sustain this pace.

4. WHAT TO IGNORE. New creators spend the first month on a banner, an intro animation and a logo. Say plainly what does not matter yet.

5. THE NUMBERS TO WATCH, and the ones to ignore. At this size subscriber count is noise; retention on video one against video five is signal.

6. THE STOP CONDITION: what result after 90 days would mean the niche is wrong rather than the execution.

RULES
- Everything must fit my stated hours. Plans that assume more time are the main reason creators quit.
- Do not promise subscriber numbers or growth rates. Nobody can predict those.
- Prefer fewer videos made properly over a volume target.

RULES THAT ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE
- Every claim in the title and thumbnail must be delivered in the video. Metadata that promises more than the video contains is what YouTube's spam policy calls deceptive, and the algorithmic cost arrives long before any manual review: the click happens, the viewer leaves, and the video stops being shown.
- No fabricated numbers, statistics, dates, studies or quotes. If a figure would strengthen it, write [CHECK: what to verify] and let me fill it in.
- Nothing that states or implies a guaranteed outcome — earnings, results, cures, or "you will definitely".
- No medical, legal or financial instruction presented as advice. Information, framed as information.
- Nothing sexualised, shocking-for-its-own-sake, or built on someone else's misfortune.
- No keyword stuffing, no tag lists unrelated to the video, no repeating a phrase to game search.

GIVE ME
REALISTIC TARGET — with the reasoning.
FIRST FIVE — in order, with why each sits there.
THREE BLOCKS — publish and learn.
IGNORE THIS FOR NOW.
WATCH THESE NUMBERS.
STOP CONDITION.

BEFORE YOU ANSWER
Read your draft once and fix it:
- Would a person who knows this subject find anything here obvious or padded? Cut it.
- Is every specific claim something the video can actually deliver?
- Did any banned phrase survive? Replace it.
- Are the sentences varied in length, or do they all run the same? Fix the rhythm.
Then give me the final version only. No preamble, no explanation of what you did.