"Minimum Viable Product" does nothing to make my author's ears perk up. You might review what @lextenebris has talked about. I'd say "discussed" but your only contribution to this has been what is essentially hand-waving.
If you would like authors to really look at your product, you should have more than a bare skeleton of what you're going to do.
I suspect that those aspiring to Silicon Valley-style development arcs may have an entirely different idea of what "viable" means than people who actually have to use products.
Out here, "viable" means that something actually has to work. It has to be fit for purpose.
This may be asking too much.
@lextenebris has helped us a lot to see things from a different angle. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says one has to have an answer to every question raised. I feel it is ok at some point to press the pause button and further research the subject matter, then come back with an appropriate response.
We would work on the idea and bring out a product with more flesh on it. Your suggestions are also welcome.