Page 1 of 8~112 min topic

Cost optimization lab

Define the lab goal and success criteria

Ship a falsifiable slice of **token+router cost controller for mixed FAQ vs complex research traffic** — success is replay day shows −32% $ with groundedness drop ≤ 0.01 vs all-frontier baseline, not a polished screenshot.

~14 min this pageLab goal

1Try it yourself

Decision drill

Cost optimization lab

Match each workload to batching, caching, or model routing — without killing quality.

Cost efficiency55%

1/3You need to embed 10k docs every night. Users are asleep.

2Learn the idea

Read

Name the operable slice

This lab builds token+router cost controller for mixed FAQ vs complex research traffic. The human in the loop is finance partner capping July LLM spend at $12k. Scope is intentionally narrower than “make AI reliable”: you will prove one oracle — replay day shows −32% $ with groundedness drop ≤ 0.01 vs all-frontier baseline — and one invariant — simple FAQs route to mini model; monthly forecast alerts at 80% budget. Record non-goals in your notes so a later change cannot silently expand authority. The incident mnemonic for the chapter is COST-ROUTER-MISCLASS-14; design as if that ticket is already written and you are filling evidence.

Read

Write the acceptance contract

Turn the oracle into a table: input fixture, expected observable, prohibited side effect, owner, latency/cost ceiling. Separate model taste from software correctness — transport, auth, parsing, and termination must be deterministic even when generated text varies. Primary metric family: usd_per_successful_answer and groundedness. Averages without a denominator or revision label do not gate release. Fake external dependencies in unit tests; live calls wait until fakes pass.

Read

Implementation artifact

BUDGET = {"month_usd": 12000, "alert_ratio": 0.8, "faq_model": "mini", "hard_model": "frontier"}

Read

Freeze the first red test

Before implementation, encode a failing check that would have caught router sends long research prompts to mini — quality collapses, retries inflate spend. That failure is the pedagogical north star for later pages: contracts reject it, happy path never performs it, validation asserts it, failure-handling contains it, observability detects it, security-ops prevents privilege tricks around it, and mastery replays it in a drill. Endpoint under study: POST /v1/answer.

Read

Stage depth

Capacity note for planners: estimate peak demand on POST /v1/answer and the cost ceiling for a failed retry storm. Write the abort conditions — unbounded spend, cross-tenant leakage, or inability to roll back — before you enjoy the first green test. Prefer synthetic fixtures shaped like production over anonymized production dumps you cannot share in class. When you are tempted to widen scope, re-read the oracle (replay day shows −32% $ with groundedness drop ≤ 0.01 vs all-frontier baseline) and cut features that do not serve it. The teaching outcome is judgment under constraints: finance partner capping July LLM spend at $12k gets a trustworthy control, not a kitchen-sink framework. Keep the language of release decisions: promote, hold, or roll back — never “see if it gets better.”

Read

Field notes for `cost-optimization-lab` / `lab-goal`

Decide what will live in version control on day one: fixtures, contract markdown, and a failing test name. Write the cost ceiling as a hard number with currency and period. If the lab involves clusters, name the non-prod context you will use and forbid prod kubecontexts in scripts. Capture the baseline metric once before changing code so later gains are comparative. Refuse tools that hide the request path behind magic macros until the oracle is green on fakes. Your README section for this page should be five lines or fewer and still falsifiable. In this chapter the product is token+router cost controller for mixed FAQ vs complex research traffic, the human stakeholder is finance partner capping July LLM spend at $12k, and the incident id you design against is COST-ROUTER-MISCLASS-14. Re-state the oracle in your notes — replay day shows −32% $ with groundedness drop ≤ 0.01 vs all-frontier baseline — and keep the invariant visible: simple FAQs route to mini model; monthly forecast alerts at 80% budget. Track usd_per_successful_answer and groundedness as the scoreboard. Surface under change control: POST /v1/answer.

Go deeper

Before you start

Why this matters

Write the single done-definition a reviewer would accept for Cost optimization lab (COST-ROUTER-MISCLASS-14). Include the numeric gate hidden in this oracle: replay day shows −32% $ with groundedness drop ≤ 0.01 vs all-frontier baseline. Then name the fake success you refuse: a demo that ignores router sends long research prompts to mini — quality collapses, retries inflate spend. Keep the sentence beside your editor; every later page should make this sentence easier to prove.

In the wild

See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.

Check your understanding

Page assessment

Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.

1. Is the oracle (replay day shows −32% $ with groundedness drop ≤ 0.01 vs all-frontier baseline) falsifiable from a fixture?
2. Is the invariant (simple FAQs route to mini model; monthly forecast alerts at 80% budget) stated without hand-waving?
3. Does the contract name COST-ROUTER-MISCLASS-14 as a risk you design against?

All responses are required.