Case Explorer
Burst pricing surprises the customer after normal overage
Customer exceeded their commitment and was billed burst pricing without any operational incident.
Evidence Packet
CRM Record
Account: Signal Forge
Tier: enterprise
Plan: Committed-100
Billing Owner: revops@prime.example
SLA Tier: enterprise-standard
Commitment includes burst pricing for usage above 100 GPU-hours.
Billing Record
Plan: Committed-100
Invoice Preview: $9,380
Credits Applied: $0
Burst GPU Hours: 45
Burst rate applied to 45 GPU-hours above commitment.
Usage & Telemetry
Window: 2026-03-01 to 2026-03-31
GPU Hours: 145
Meter Status: healthy
Usage is consistent with the overage billed; service health was normal.
Customer Note
We had a cost spike this month and want to understand why the invoice jumped so much.
Policy Snippet
Usage above commitment is billed at the burst rate defined in the order form. Burst usage is not an SLA matter.
Ground Truth
issue_type: policy_applicability_reviewroot_cause: unknown_root_causecustomer_impact: invoice_confusioncontractual_applicability: not_an_sla_casediscrepancy_detected: falserecommended_owner: revops_ownerrecommended_action: send_explanation_onlyneeds_human_review: falseconfidence: highadjudication_notes: ["Burst pricing is behaving as contracted, so the response is explanatory."]reference_customer_note: Your invoice increased because usage exceeded the 100 GPU-hour commitment and the additional 45 GPU-hours were billed at the burst rate defined in your plan. There is no service incident or billing discrepancy in this case.reference_internal_note: Owner: revops_owner. Action: send_explanation_only because the overage is normal burst pricing, discrepancy_detected is false, and this is not an SLA case.