Synthetic CI buying comparison: a fee difference is not a scope or savings verdict

An invented month, not measured demand

Assume three different repeatable configuration faults in one repository's agreed default-branch workflows. Assume solely for arithmetic that each qualifies for the £149 one-job offer and that the monthly provider agrees coverage for them within its £295/month allowance. Neither qualification nor capacity has been tested. The following counts are a hypothetical buying scenario, not a frequency estimate or customer history.

If the matrix is wider than the box, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard: focus the matrix and use Left/Right.

eligible one-off faults | nominal one-off fees | monthly advertised fee
1                       | 1 × £149 = £149      | £295
2                       | 2 × £149 = £298      | £295
3                       | 3 × £149 = £447      | £295

three-fault nominal fee difference = £447 − £295 = £152

Cheaper fees do not establish equal outcomes

Two nominal repairs exceed £295 by £3, but that does not establish a break-even business case. One-off acceptance is the agreed same-trigger branch job; recurring acceptance also needs the agreed default-branch outcome and customer merge. Scope, allowance, investigation targets, exclusions, taxes and monthly payment terms must be agreed. More than four faults, an intermittent test, application defects and account actions can invalidate this simple comparison.

• No guaranteed monthly completions or response time follows from the allowance.
• The customer still reviews and merges changes.
• The £152 difference is conditional fee arithmetic, not realised savings or a reason to subscribe.

Show the cheap alternatives honestly

For a separate invented comparison, assume a tool fee of £30/month, four active customer hours to investigate/review its output, and a chosen time-value rate of £60/hour. The fee is not a real vendor price. It produces £30 supplier fee plus £240 customer time value = £270 mixed fee-and-time value. Assume DIY instead uses six hours at the same rate: £360 time value, with incremental cash cost unknown. Those assumed hours are not measured or matched productivity. Paid-service customer hours and provider usage are unknown, not zero, so no total-cost winner can be declared.

• Use free official documentation if the authorised maintainer can resolve the fault.
• Replace every assumed fee and hour with the buyer's actual evidence before using this to decide.
• A tool must be checked for whether it explains, proposes or verifies a repair, and for access and usage costs.

What this example proves and what to ask

Local arithmetic checks verify the stated products and differences only. No tool, CI workflow, supplier service or customer's effort was tested. Ask for the named covered workflows, representative causes, remaining review/merge work and treatment of unresolved items. Confirm fit and react to the existing £149 or £295/month price rather than assuming a subscription or savings. No new paid package is created; prices remain untested and written scope, access and terms precede work. Do not send source, private logs, keys or invitations initially.