AI & ML
The Two-Ledger Model: Transaction-Grain Cost Accounting for Multi-Agent AI Systems Across Clouds, Models, and Systems of Record
arXiv cs.DC0 views
arXiv:2611.06989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprises run business transactions through multi-agent AI systems spanning clouds, large language models (LLMs), orchestration harnesses, and systems of record. Finance receives AI cost only at settlement grain, aggregated by SKU and charge period. The business question (what did this order, claim, or case cost in AI?) cannot be answered from billing data, because providers never see enterprise transaction boundaries. The FinOps Open Cost and Usage Specification (FOCUS) gives billing data one schema across providers but remains settlement-grain even as it adds AI token and requester attribution. We formalize this grain mismatch, derive seven requirements, and propose the Two-Ledger Model: a settlement ledger of FOCUS-conformant billing data joined to an attribution ledger of invocation-grain usage records built on OpenTelemetry GenAI telemetry. A layered correlation spine (trace context, A2A/MCP metadata, business-key correlation, probabilistic matching) assigns each record to its business transaction with recorded method and confidence; a versioned rate card prices usage in near real time; period reconciliation ties both ledgers to the invoice, and the unexplained residual identifies shadow AI. Costs are reported per order, claim, or outcome with agentic cost metrics. A simulation with known ground truth shows the spine sustaining cost coverage above 99% as trace propagation falls to zero, the reconciliation residual recovering planted unmetered spend within 0.24 percentage points while flagging provider billing errors, and mid-flight gating cutting p99 transaction cost by up to 61% at a 2-4% false-pause rate. We propose the attribution ledger as an invocation-grain FOCUS profile for standardization.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06989PreviousResource-Efficient Reinforcement Learning Post-Training through Elastic Expert ParallelismNextBeyond Proof of Possession: A Relational Theory of Authority
Related posts

An AI agent built a Godot game. Then it checked its work.
0dev.to
Make a price cleaner reject formats it does not understand
0dev.to

How a Silent Fallback Corrupted My Hindsight Experiment
0dev.to
Une IA modifie 0,016 % des poids d’un modèle : ce que montre l’expérience
0dev.to

Why a new report on Anthropic automating AI development is alarming researchers
0The Verge
How I Built TrialSleuth AI: Simulating Clinical Trial Safety Before Exposing Human Participants
0dev.to