Pick an option on each card and press Done; your answer goes straight
back to the session. The raiser's pick is marked. "I'm not sure" and "Take it to the engineering bridge" are real answers.
1
In plain terms. Should Vercel's spending limit stay at $200 a month, or move up to match what we actually spend? Right now we spend about $520 a month on Vercel even on a quiet month, and $676 this month. The $200 limit has been passed in three of the last five months. We just built an alarm that watches this limit, and it works — it would have warned us 18 days before Vercel's own email did. But if the limit stays at $200, that alarm goes off every single month around day ten, and people stop reading it. Bringing the spend down to $200 means cutting more than the wasted builds we already found.
The full question, as raised
Vercel on-demand spend runs ~$520/cycle at baseline (pre-surge, Sep 14-Oct 1 mean $17.34/day) against an inferred $200/cycle budget; 3 of the last 5 cycles were over (May 144%, Jun 62%, Jul 47%, Aug 153%, Sep 310%). agent-smith#892 ships a cycle-vs-budget alarm that first fires 2026-09-23, 18 days before Vercel's own 300% email. At $200 it fires every cycle from ~day 10 — correctly, but permanently. Keep $200 and cut spend to meet it, or raise the budget to intended spend?
Why, and what was tried
The session raising this recommends: Raise the limit to match what we actually spend The build waste we found is ~$15/day; even removing all of it leaves the baseline well over $200, so a $200 alarm would still fire monthly and be ignored. Tried first, unsuccessfully: fable-decide is still running on this (started 16:19Z, task aws-spending-surge-investigation); an earlier run on this task's arming question returned ABANDONED with no ruling, so no receipt is cited. Raised now rather than waiting because the alarm ships either way and its threshold is one named constant changed by a one-line PR.
3849e712 (adopted from 9d21b146) is parked on this.