What is being tested
Was a continuous-integration concurrency fee tied to configured capacity or measured usage as agreed? The boundary for this investigation is ci job parallelism concurrency tier. Begin with the disputed transaction or population, then identify which runner concurrency setting establishes the observed position and which job overlap history supports the comparison. A difference in totals should not replace this question.
Evidence: runner concurrency setting
For ci job parallelism concurrency tier, runner concurrency setting must be linked to job overlap history. Record the effective configuration or entitlement rather than only the current state. Explain how it relates to the billed service. Operational availability and commercial scope can differ, so a configuration change alone does not prove that the supplier charge should have ceased.
Evidence: job overlap history
For ci job parallelism concurrency tier, job overlap history must be linked to parallelism pricing rule. Document the observation window, units, inclusion criteria and export version. Identify gaps and corrected events before using the total. Keep raw observations separate from derived quantities so a reviewer can reproduce the population without assuming every logged event is independently chargeable.
Evidence: parallelism pricing rule
For ci job parallelism concurrency tier, parallelism pricing rule must be linked to CI invoice. Retain the applicable wording, effective dates and scope of covered transactions. Identify the event or population that controls the calculation. Do not silently replace a contractual definition with a dashboard label, customary practice or the latest published rule.
Evidence: CI invoice
For ci job parallelism concurrency tier, CI invoice must be linked to runner concurrency setting. Keep the issued document version and line-level quantity, currency and service period. A header total cannot establish which component is being tested. Retain later corrections as linked versions, so a replacement does not create a second liability.
Reconciliation logic
Compare purchased concurrent capacity with the defined meter and distinguish runtime charges from parallelism entitlement. Build the comparison at the level identified by runner concurrency setting and retain the governing version from job overlap history. Show intermediate classifications and excluded items separately; a net total can hide an unsupported component or a correctly offset correction.
Exception conditions
Reserved parallel capacity can be billable even when idle. Treat the item as an unresolved exception only when the comparison described here cannot be supported by the linked runner concurrency setting, job overlap history, parallelism pricing rule, CI invoice. Document the conflicting input or rule. A plausible operational explanation requires validation, but it should not be discarded to maximize an apparent financial difference.
Human review and outcome
Engineering confirms capacity elections and approved changes. Return an entitlement-versus-runtime schedule for finance. Keep the reviewer's reason and source references with that disposition. A supported correction should be followed to the revised record or settlement; an accepted explanation can close the question with no adjustment. Missing authority or evidence should remain an open task rather than a confirmed recovery.
Limitations and processing boundary
Do not infer license removability from activity alone or describe a proposed configuration change as confirmed savings. The authoritative spend, license and contract producer is not complete; customer evidence and processing validation are prerequisites to production conclusions. In this scenario, absence of runner concurrency setting or job overlap history limits whether the comparison can be completed. The review method describes what people should validate, not a promise that AuditRes automatically detects or executes this specific outcome.
AuditRes pathway
Discuss ci job parallelism concurrency tier in the Technology Spend workspace. Review current plans, the shared platform and secure evidence requirements; use the existing contact path to confirm the sources and validation this scope requires.
AuditRes Technology Spend: Available for onboarding. Public previews use synthetic demonstration data; production processing remains gated until applicable customer sources and authoritative processors are connected and validated.
Neighboring financial questions
- Compare capacity reservations with usage commitments in a billing review
- AI asynchronous job cancellation billing boundaries
- AI image-generation quality-tier billing
- AI cached-input price classification
Technology Spend resource hub · All guides in this evidence collection