The bulk of the vote.leave campaign originally started out waiting to see what reforms David Cameron would get before deciding if it would support in/out (remain/leave). However, it abandoned this wait and see policy and decide to back Leave.
Looking at its website and policies, it still seems to have substantial designs on reform of the EU as opposed to an exit. For instance on trade it says that the EU should allow non-Eurozone members to negotiate their own trade agreements. Once UK leaves the EU, it is none of our business what the EU allows or denies to its members, Eurozone or not.
Similar traces of reform think (as opposed to leave) are spread across the vote.leave site, calling into question how committed they actually are to leaving rather than reforming the EU.
Personally I did quite a bit of work on the Yes2AV campaign - and although I now believe it was a no-hoper from day one, I was very aware that the lead campaign for 'Yes' did not actually support AV - driven by the Electoral Refrom Society and others they supported STV (single transferable vote) and had attacked AV in the past - an issue that the No campaign highlighted.
I am 100% sure that any lead 'Leave' campaign must be 100% committed to leave - and (in the very worst case) support Leave even if it means working with the EU on 'World Trade Organisation' (WTO) Rules.
WTO option is the very worst case (and not so bad with tariffs limited to a few %) and the UK can certainly do better - but until we have voted out, and started negotiations it is impossible to say exactly how much better, or in what way.
The campaigns Leave.EU and Vote.Leave will only have any mandate for getting an out vote, not for what out looks like - so it seems to me they must be prepared to sell 'leave' on the (potentially) worst terms of WTO. If they wouldn't accept WTO they are not really committed to Leave - just as Yes2AV weren't committed to AV!