Outcome billing is ideal for pretty much any SaaS product.
Sounds great in theory, until you realize everyone has a different definition of outcome.
Sounds great in theory, until you realize everyone has a different definition of outcome.
Take for instance, customer support Agent , that is supposed to resolve tickets. Assuming it resolves around 30% tickets by an objective measure. Do you think that cannot be captured and agreed upon by both sides?
The same oversight mechanism that applies to humans cannot correct the flaws of AI agents?
AI agent developers internally have a metric they are targeting to improve. That itself violates goodhart law.
No I do not.
Once you shift to billing for outcomes like "resolutions," the vendor switches from a utility provider to the judge and jury of their own performance. At scale, that creates a "fox guarding the henhouse" dynamic. The friction of auditing those outcomes to ensure they aren't just Goodharted metrics eventually offsets the simplicity the model promises. Frankly, I just cannot and will not trust the judgment of tech companies who evangelize their own LLM outputs.
I get the binary part. The biggest difference is the subjective component of outcome? However, a tech provider - especially Agent provider - has to bring down the subjective to a quantitative metric when selling. If that cannot be done, I am not sure what we are going to be buying from Agent builders/providers?