clay-borg/specs/CostAccounting.md

Cost Accounting

Status: v1.0 — 2026-07-31. Derived from CB-RES-0002 (approved) and ADR-0003. Makes M-D2-CST computable; supersedes its "uncomputable" disposition in CB-EV-0001.

Defines how the USD cost of agentic work is measured and attributed, so that D2 claims about implementation efficiency are falsifiable.

---

1. The cost model

1.1 Unit of billing

The unit is one API response, identified by requestId. It is not one JSONL line: a response is written as up to six lines split by content block (thinking, text, tool_use), and every line repeats the same usage object.

CA-01. Cost is computed over responses deduplicated by requestId. Summing per line is a defect; it inflates by ≈1.9× on measured data.

CA-02. Dedup is asserted, not assumed. Within a requestId group, usage must be identical across lines and the model must not vary. A violation aborts the run rather than producing a number.

Rationale for CA-02: if the format ever splits one response across two requestIds, dedup under-reports and nothing looks wrong. The dangerous direction gets the assertion.

1.2 Price formula

Per response, against benchmarks/baselines/model-prices.toml:

cost = input_tokens              × price.input
     + output_tokens             × price.output
     + cache_read_input_tokens   × price.input × cache.read       (0.10)
     + ephemeral_5m_input_tokens × price.input × cache.write_5m   (1.25)
     + ephemeral_1h_input_tokens × price.input × cache.write_1h   (2.00)

CA-03. Each response is priced at its own message.model rate. A session may mix models; CB-WP-0001 used three.

CA-04. Cache writes are priced per TTL. The top-level cache_creation_input_tokens aggregate equals ephemeral_5m + ephemeral_1h and must never be priced at a single multiplier — doing so inflated a measured subagent transcript by 43%.

CA-05. A response whose model is absent from the price sheet is reported as an unpriced line with its token counts, never dropped and never priced at a default.

1.3 Scope of a measurement

CA-06. A measurement enumerates every transcript for the repo: ~/.claude/projects/<slug>/*.jsonl and every <session>/subagents/agent-*.jsonl. Subagent cost is not in the main file and is invisible to a collector that reads one path.

CA-07. Every committed number states its pin — a timestamp or commit. Transcripts are append-live: the file grows as the measuring session writes to it, and an unpinned total is not reproducible.

2. The attribution contract

CA-08. A response is attributed to the task named by the next commit at or after it, within its own session: interval := (prev_commit_time, this_commit_time], scoped by sessionId.

CA-09. Timestamps are converted, never offset-subtracted. Commit times are parsed from %cI and converted to UTC; this repo carries two distinct offsets.

CA-10. A response in a commit whose subject carries no T## tag is attributed to UNATTRIBUTED, which is reported as its own line in every table. On CB-WP-0001 this is 33% of cost ($30.32 of $92.21) — a per-task table is a view over roughly two-thirds of the money and says so wherever it appears.

CA-11. Cost after the last commit is an open remainder, reported separately from UNATTRIBUTED. It is work not yet committed, not work without a task.

CA-12. Attribution never keys on wall-clock alone. Two sessions overlapped 4 h 13 m on this repo carrying ~$12; only sessionId separates them.

3. Reported shape

CA-13. Every report carries composition — the split across input, output, cache read, cache write 5m, cache write 1h — alongside the total. A total alone would have concealed the finding that motivated this work: 88.4% of spend is cache, at 256:1 cache-read to output tokens.

CA-14. Reconciliation is asserted. Attributed + unattributed + open remainder + unpriced must equal the transcript total to the cent. A mismatch aborts rather than reporting.

CA-15. Tables that a tool can emit are emitted by the tool. Every committed number in this capability's evidence is produced by a command, not typed. (Adversarial review of CB-RES-0002 found every computed figure correct to the cent and three hand-typed markdown tables wrong.)

4. Acceptance metrics

Each row names the command that produces its number, per InnerLoop §Step 4. cb-cost is tools/cb-cost (T04).

ID	Metric	Target	Instrument
AC-1	reproduces the pinned CB-WP-0001 total	$92.87 = $92.21 main + $0.66 subagent	cb-cost --repo clay-borg --pin fc76445
AC-2	reconciliation residual (CA-14)	$0.00 exactly	same command, reconciled: ok line
AC-3	unattributed share reported (CA-10)	present, and 33% on the pinned run	cb-cost --pin fc76445 --by-task
AC-4	composition reported (CA-13)	all five components present	cb-cost --pin fc76445 --composition
AC-5	dedup invariant asserted (CA-02)	violation exits non-zero	cb-cost --self-test
AC-6	positive control: refuses to report on zero responses	exits non-zero	cb-cost --self-test
AC-7	subagent tree included (CA-06)	omitting it changes AC-1 by $0.66	cb-cost --self-test
AC-8	per-TTL cache pricing (CA-04)	5m-only transcript prices at 1.25×	cb-cost --self-test

AC-5 through AC-8 are the positive control. Per InnerLoop v1.0 §Step 5, a harness must assert it did the work it reports. --self-test runs each assertion against a fixture whose expected value is known and fails loudly; make cost runs it before any reported number.

5. Metric feasibility check

Per InnerLoop §Step 4, the acceptance table is checked against the contracts in this same spec:

• AC-1's $92.87 is reachable only if CA-06 holds (both trees enumerated). Under a main-file-only collector the target is unreachable — this is the defect the adversarial review caught, where a target of $92.21 would have been hit only by a broken collector.
• AC-3's 33% is a property of CB-WP-0001's commit subjects, not of the collector. It is a regression pin on the fixture, not a quality target; improving tagging discipline will change it, and that is expected.
• CA-07 (pinning) makes AC-1 reproducible; without it the target drifts upward on every run and the test is meaningless.

6. Known limitations, stated with the numbers

• Per-task cost covers ~67% of spend. Structural: 19 of 33 commits carry no task tag. Reported per CA-10, never silently dropped.
• Work spanning a commit is assigned whole to the later task. Bounded by one interval: p50 6.9 min, p90 17.7 min, max 36.8 min.
• The price sheet cannot express a time-boxed rate. Sonnet's intro price is a TOML comment, so the sheet is silently wrong for sonnet-priced work ($0.17 at the pin, 0.19%). This becomes an error, not a rounding issue, on 2026-08-31 when the intro rate expires and the comment and the data disagree in the other direction. Tracked as a schema defect against the price sheet.
• The State Hub cannot store what this spec measures. Its token event schema has tokens_in/tokens_out and no cache fields, so the dashboard necessarily shows a lossy projection. This is a limitation of the sink, not of the metric; make cost remains the authority.

7. Revisions to M-D2-CST

specs/MetricsAndScenarios.md §1a is superseded by this spec. M-D2-CST is redefined from "tokens × pricepoint" — which named no instrument and was never computed — to: USD per completed workplan task, per CA-08 attribution, produced by make cost. M-D2-TOK is retained but demoted: tokens are the input to the cost model, not a comparable figure across models or across cache states.