Not the spread of spend. The flow of work.
How much work is being asked for, how much is in flight on agents versus people, how much is landing with a receipt, where the pile-up is, and what it all cost. The same screens your engineers use, one zoom out: summed by area, never by person. Nobody on your team gets graded by a number they did not choose.
Value in flight, landed, waiting. Cost fourth.
Illustrative numbers. Worth attaches to work, never to a person. If a VP screenshotted a screen and an engineer would feel graded, it does not ship in that shape.
Doing is cheap now. Review is the queue.
In the backlog we studied, an agent's plan ran in minutes and the PR sat open for hours: a two-to-four-times gap that is people, not compute. The pile-up card shows where that queue is, by area, with the worth waiting in it, so a lead can move a reviewer or pair two people instead of buying more tokens. No dollar claimed here until it is measured; it is the number the CTO asks for and nobody has.
Cost rides along because every row was sized before and receipted after.
| area | what is happening | worth | cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| billing | 4 waiting on review · 2 days median | $48k waiting | — |
| exports | 2 at a wall · policy: hold | $26k · resets thu 9:00 | — |
| auth | 6 in flight · 4 on agents | $31k in flight | $140 so far |
| platform | 9 landed this week · all receipted | $35k landed | $180 |
| unvalued | 5 rows with no worth stated | ask the filer | — |
Set four numbers once. Nobody asks you for a limit again.
The workspace's monthly cap on the platform key. The number finance already wanted and never had a place to put.
Per seat, per month: what a seat may continue on the key past its own bars. Raised on request, in the audit log.
Auto-continue under this. A worst case under the threshold and inside the allowance continues without a question. Worth high can raise it.
Hold, unless worth is high. What happens at 100% when nobody answers. The audit log says the policy chose.
The page is for glancing. Your AI is for asking.
The same aggregates the overview shows are what the connector answers with — and the same rule holds at the boundary: it answers by area, never by person, whichever AI is asking.
Nothing here is for HR.
Per-person spend reaches a manager only when the workspace turns that on, and the person is told. Leads see aggregates by team and area. Nothing ranks people; nothing here is for HR.
This week on the sled illustrative landed 47 rows · $212k worth · $1,140 cost in band 78% of sizes · calibration moving up overnight 19 rows at half price · $71 saved walls 12 hit · 12 priced · 0 waited review billing is the queue · 2 days median unvalued 5 rows · ask the filer people not counted