import { UNLABELLED } from './usage.js';
import type { PricingCatalogue } from './pricing.js';
import type { UsageProfileReport } from './usage.js';
/**
 * What would actually move this bill.
 *
 * ## The number this exists to answer
 *
 * Trazum's rules recover about **1%** of a bill. Measured, on an ordinary support
 * prompt: three tokens out of three hundred and six. On a company spending twenty
 * thousand a month that is two hundred, and nobody installs a tool for two
 * hundred. The complaint is correct and it is the most important thing anybody has
 * said about this product.
 *
 * The rest of the package reads a prompt file and shortens it. This reads what was
 * charged and prices the levers that are **not** the prompt, from the same log, at
 * the same arithmetic:
 *
 * | lever | what it moves |
 * |---|---|
 * | which model the call goes to | Opus 5 → Sonnet 5 is 60% off; → Haiku 4.5 is 80% |
 * | the Batch API | 50% flat, on input and output |
 * | prompt caching | 3–4x the rules |
 * | shortening the prompt | ~1% |
 *
 * So the honest headline is that **the money is in what you call, not in how long
 * the prompt is** — and the tool that only did the last row should say so, in the
 * reader's own figures, rather than reporting a 1% win as a success.
 *
 * ## Every figure here is arithmetic on tokens that were billed
 *
 * Nothing is modelled and nothing is extrapolated. A route lever is the same token
 * counts at another model's published rate. A batch lever is the same tokens at the
 * provider's batch multiplier. There is no assumed traffic, no assumed prompt, no
 * assumed anything — which is the whole reason this reads a usage log instead of a
 * directory.
 *
 * ## What it refuses to do
 *
 * **It never says a lever is safe to take.** Routing a workload to a cheaper model
 * is a quality question that arithmetic cannot answer, and this module has never
 * seen the prompt or a single answer. So a route carries its dollar figure *and*
 * the command that measures whether it holds, and it is described as worth testing
 * rather than worth doing. The same posture the `model-downgrade` advisory has
 * always had, for the same reason.
 *
 * **It never says "per month".** A usage log covers whatever period somebody
 * happened to record, and this module is not told which. Every figure is "on this
 * bill" — over exactly the calls in the file. Multiplying an unknown period into a
 * monthly headline is how a tool ends up quoting a saving four times the real one.
 *
 * **It never crosses a vendor.** A cheaper model at another provider is a
 * migration, not a routing change, and pricing one as though it were a switch you
 * could make on Tuesday is a saving nobody can take.
 */
/** What a lever is. */
export type LeverId = 
/** Send these calls to a cheaper model of the same family. */
'route'
/** Send these calls through the Batch API. */
 | 'batch';
/**
 * Everything available on one label-and-model slice, and what it comes to.
 *
 * **Grouped by slice rather than listed as separate levers, because the levers
 * are not additive and a list invites adding them.** The first version printed
 * "route support-rag: $12.60" and "batch support-rag: $10.50" as two rows against
 * a slice that had only spent $21.00 — a reader who added them got $23.10, a
 * saving larger than the bill it came from. Impossible, and in the flattering
 * direction.
 *
 * They do combine, just not by addition: batching a routed call saves half of the
 * *cheaper* model's price, not half of the one you left. `combinedUsd` is that
 * figure, computed rather than summed.
 */
export interface SliceLevers {
    /** The label these calls carry, or `UNLABELLED`. */
    label: string;
    /** The model they go to now. */
    model: string;
    modelName: string;
    /** Calls affected — the reader's own judgement of whether it is worth a day. */
    calls: number;
    /** What these exact calls cost. */
    spentUsd: number;
    /** A cheaper model one capability step down, if the catalogue has one. */
    route: {
        candidate: {
            id: string;
            displayName: string;
        };
        savingUsd: number;
    } | null;
    /** The Batch API, where the provider sells one. */
    batch: {
        savingUsd: number;
    } | null;
    /**
     * Both together, **computed and never summed**. Equal to the single available
     * lever when only one is.
     */
    combinedUsd: number;
    /** `combinedUsd` as a fraction of the whole bill in the log, not of this slice. */
    shareOfBill: number;
}
export interface BillLevers {
    /** Ranked by what the whole slice could save, largest first. */
    slices: SliceLevers[];
    /**
     * The most that shortening prompt text could ever be worth on this bill.
     *
     * Everything that is not output: plain input, cache reads, cache writes. It is a
     * **ceiling and not an estimate** — deliberately generous, because it counts
     * retrieved context, conversation history and tool results, none of which live in
     * a prompt file and none of which a rules pass can touch. The real figure is
     * below it, usually far below.
     *
     * It is here so the levers above have something to be compared against. A tool
     * that reports a 1% win without saying 1% of what is not being useful.
     */
    promptCeilingUsd: number;
    promptCeilingShare: number;
    /** The bill the shares are taken against. */
    totalUsd: number;
}
export interface BillLeverOptions {
    catalogue: PricingCatalogue;
    /** Date the prices are read at, so a promotional rate resolves the same way. */
    on?: Date;
    /**
     * Slices worth less than this share of the bill are dropped.
     *
     * Not a judgement about small money — a judgement about attention. Thirty rows
     * worth a tenth of a percent each bury the two worth twenty, and a report nobody
     * finishes reading is a report that changed nothing. Default 1%.
     */
    minShare?: number;
}
/**
 * Prices the levers that are not the prompt, from a profile of real calls.
 *
 * Returns them ranked by money, with the ceiling on prompt shortening beside them
 * so the comparison is unavoidable. Empty when nothing clears `minShare`, which is
 * a legitimate answer: a bill already on the cheapest model of its family, with no
 * batch API to reach for, has no lever here, and saying so is more useful than
 * manufacturing one.
 */
export declare function billLevers(report: UsageProfileReport, options: BillLeverOptions): BillLevers;
/** Named so a report can say "unlabelled" in the reader's language. */
export { UNLABELLED };
//# sourceMappingURL=levers.d.ts.map