# AIYVO usage analysis

**SYNTHETIC: fictitious example data, not customer data. No provider-verified billing used. No savings are claimed.**

Records 672 | groups 5 | row kind request | currency USD | period 2026-09-28T00:00:00+00:00 to 2026-10-04T23:45:00+00:00
List-price estimates: price table basis `synthetic`, not verified; not necessarily current.
Reported costs: basis not declared. An empty cost is missing, never 0, and is not filled in. Zero costs: not declared; a reported 0 is shown as reported, and cost orderings that include a group reporting 0 are withheld.

**Each record is one request** (row_kind request; declared in the mapping file). Cost per successful request: reported cost of all requests, failures included / number of successful requests. Cost per completed task is not shown: AIYVO does not group requests into tasks.

## The value AIYVO uncovered

Figures are synthetic. Nothing here is a verified saving.

| | |
|---|---|
| Total AI spend analyzed | $50.00 |
| Potential savings identified | Not yet quantified |
| Spend requiring further review | $10.73 |
| Evidence-backed findings | 5 |
| Verified realized savings | None verified |

Investigation spend, not recoverable savings: money already spent on requests that are worth looking into. AIYVO does not estimate how much of it, if any, could be recovered.

**Observed facts**

- **The lowest price per request is not the lowest cost per successful request.** Judged on price per request, provider_c/model-c1 has the lowest figure. Counting what failures cost, provider_b/model-b1 has the lowest cost per successful request ($0.0684 against $0.1474). A choice made on price per request alone would miss this. The groups served different requests, so this is an observation, not a recommendation.
  - provider_c/model-c1: reported cost per request: $0.0147. Calculation: reported cost of provider_c/model-c1's requests with a cost ÷ those requests. Sources: report.json groups[provider_c/model-c1].metrics.reported_cost_per_record; input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic).
  - provider_b/model-b1: cost per successful request: $0.0684. Calculation: reported cost of all provider_b/model-b1's requests, failures included ÷ its successful requests. Sources: report.json groups[provider_b/model-b1].metrics.cost_per_success; input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic).
  - provider_c/model-c1: cost per successful request: $0.1474. Calculation: reported cost of all provider_c/model-c1's requests, failures included ÷ its successful requests. Sources: report.json groups[provider_c/model-c1].metrics.cost_per_success; input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic).
- **21.0% of reported spend went to requests that failed.** $10.49 of $50.00 paid for requests whose outcome was failure. Failures are paid for, so they belong in what AI work really costs; why they failed is worth reviewing.
  - Reported cost of failed requests: $10.49. Calculation: sum of reported_cost over the 289 requests with outcome failure and a cost. Sources: input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic); input file, outcome column.
- **Spend AIYVO could not assess.** $0.34 is in 1 group with too few requests to compare (provider_d/model-d1). AIYVO draws no conclusion from it.
  - Reported cost in groups withheld from comparison: $0.34. Calculation: sum of reported_cost over the 12 requests with a cost in provider_d/model-d1. Sources: input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic); report.json groups[provider_d/model-d1].evidence.exclusions.
- **4 requests with no reported cost.** Their spend is not in any total and is not estimated (provider_e/model-e1). Complete cost data would make the comparison stronger.
  - Spend of requests without a reported cost: Not yet quantified. Calculation: 4 requests have an empty cost; AIYVO never fills in a missing cost. Sources: input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic).

**Estimated opportunities**

- **Reported cost above the list-price estimate.** $0.08 more was reported than the supplied list prices would give for the same requests (provider_e/model-e1: 5.0% above). Worth checking against the provider's prices and invoices. This is an estimate: the price table (synthetic) is not verified, and the difference is not a saving.
  - provider_e/model-e1: reported cost minus list-price estimate: $0.08. Calculation: sum over the 56 of 60 requests with a cost of (reported_cost − list-price estimate from token counts × the price table's rates). Sources: input file (SHA-256 under Provenance), reported_cost column (synthetic); input file, token columns; price table (basis synthetic, SHA-256 under Provenance, not verified); report.json groups[provider_e/model-e1].metrics.reported_vs_list_estimate.

**Verified realized savings: None verified.** A realized saving needs provider billing from before and after a change; none was supplied, and AIYVO has made no change to your usage.

**Potential savings identified: Not yet quantified.** The groups in this file served different requests, and quality and prices are not verified, so moving work between them has no measured price. A saving needs the same work measured on both options, or confirmed prices and volumes; this analysis has neither, so AIYVO estimates no saving.

Spend requiring further review: sum of reported_cost over the 297 requests with a cost that failed, have no known outcome, or are in a group too small to compare; each request is counted once. Total AI spend analyzed: sum of reported_cost over the 668 of 672 requests that have a cost; 4 requests without a cost are not included.

## Results

Figures in parentheses are coverage (records with the value / all records) where it is below 100%.

| group | records | reported cost | cost / record | list estimate | reported vs list | request success rate | cost / successful request | median latency ms | p90 latency ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| provider_a/model-a1 | 200 | $34.8651 | $0.1743 | $34.8651 | 0.0% | 86.5% | $0.2015 | 25190.5 | 33178 |
| provider_b/model-b1 | 200 | $10.1953 | $0.0510 | $11.3281 | -10.0% | 74.5% | $0.0684 | 15090.5 | 18910 |
| provider_c/model-c1 | 200 | $2.9489 | $0.0147 | $2.9489 | 0.0% | 10.0% | $0.1474 | 6924.5 (190/200) | 9394 (190/200) |
| provider_d/model-d1 | 12 | WITHHELD | WITHHELD | WITHHELD | WITHHELD | WITHHELD | WITHHELD | WITHHELD | WITHHELD |
| provider_e/model-e1 | 60 | WITHHELD | $0.0296 (56/60) | $1.7278 | 5.0% (56/60) | 51.7% | WITHHELD | 11619.5 | 15219 |

"Reported vs list" compares the records that have a reported cost with the list-price estimate for those same records. A difference may reflect discounts, credits, markups or a mis-mapped price; it is not verified and is not a saving. The list estimate column covers all records.

## Withheld figures

- provider_d/model-d1: all comparison figures withheld (insufficient sample: 12 valid records; at least 30 are required).
- provider_e/model-e1: reported cost total withheld (cost missing on 4 of 60 records; a total would count them as free).
- provider_e/model-e1: cost per successful request withheld (requires 100% cost and outcome coverage; cost present in 56 of 60 records (93.3%), success or failure known in 60 of 60 records (100.0%)).

## Observational ordering (eligible groups only; not a recommendation)

Comparability: every compared group has the same share of each task type.

1. provider_b/model-b1: cost per successful request 0.0684 USD (149 of 200 requests succeeded)
2. provider_c/model-c1: cost per successful request 0.1474 USD (20 of 200 requests succeeded)
3. provider_a/model-a1: cost per successful request 0.2015 USD (173 of 200 requests succeeded)

## Provenance

SHA-256 fingerprints identify the exact files and analyzer source used, so the report can be reproduced. They prove nothing about whether the data is true or complete: the data is not independently verified, and the fingerprints are not a signature or a custody record.

- analyzer: AIYVO offline usage analyzer, source SHA-256 dc759f963d31da373750dfd674f9ddd0824fffe2bbd29e531460b907e2dfcf70
- input: SHA-256 809be4b64ba5651786634621983900e884ce922c675594e9f6865a2dde171a60
- mapping: SHA-256 7e3152d4614714c543c4c165324fc0680d070ecea41ce5672f4d229aebe92551
- price table: SHA-256 0e70df3c41b6fecc5ead10fde57ed91908d16545dc954b556ca47befb5fb3b67 (basis synthetic)
- reference time: 2026-10-11T00:00:00+00:00 (--as-of)
- data source: synthetic (the input is AIYVO's bundled synthetic example)

## Limitations

- All usage, cost, outcome and latency values are synthetic (fictitious example data), not customer data, and were not independently verified.
- No provider-verified billing was used. Reported cost may differ from what a provider invoices.
- List-price estimates are AIYVO estimates from the supplied price table; those prices are not verified and not necessarily current.
- Comparisons are observational: different groups served different requests. This is not a controlled experiment.
- Token counts from different models are not directly comparable (different tokenizers).
- No savings, quality superiority or recommendation is claimed.
- Rows are requests, so a success is a successful request, not a completed task. AIYVO does not group requests into tasks: when a task takes several requests (retries, agent steps), cost per successful request can be far below the cost of a completed task, and no per-task figure is given.
- The file mixes task types. The compared groups have the same mix, but results for one task type can differ from the mix; use --by-task-type to see each task type separately.