Guide
What vendors mean by an outcome: eleven published definitions, side by side
Four vendors sell a "resolution." One counts it after 24 hours of silence and takes it back if the customer returns. One verifies it for 72 hours and bills only the verified tier. One counts it when no human was needed. One says the customer decides. Same word, four contracts. This is a tour of the published definitions we keep in the outcome definitions registry, and the four things every definition has to say.
Say "we charge per resolution" to four finance teams and you have made four different promises. Each vendor below publishes what its word means. Read side by side, the definitions are the interesting part: not the prices, but the unit, the decider, the clock, and what happens when the customer comes back.
We keep these in the outcome definitions registry: each entry records the published definition verbatim, the unit, the price and its basis, who decides, the window, the correction rule, the source page, and the date we read it. Entries are marked verified when a primary source is on file and awaiting verification when it is not.
Four things a definition has to say
Strip any outcome definition down and it answers four questions. The registry stores them as four fields because a definition that skips one is not finished.
- The unit. What is one of these? A resolution, a resolved conversation, a pull request, a recovered chargeback, a validated report, a mitigated finding.
- The authority. Who decides that one happened? The vendor's rule, a vendor check, a rule the buyer wrote, or someone outside both parties.
- The window. How long before the answer is final? Silence for 24 hours, a 72-hour verification period, a soak window, a program's triage queue.
- The correction rule. What happens when the answer changes later? A deduction, a refund, a re-check, or nothing published.
Who decides: the four authorities
| Authority | What it means | Published examples |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor rule | The vendor states what counts in its own terms and its own meter applies the rule. | Fin counts a resolution assumed after 24 hours of silence or confirmed by the customer. HubSpot counts a conversation the agent handled with no human handoff. |
| Vendor verification | The vendor runs an additional check before the outcome is billed or kept. | Zendesk bills only the verified resolution tier. PostHog re-checks a pull request during a soak window and refunds one that was not worth paying for. Horizon3 marks a finding mitigated only after a retest. |
| Buyer-defined rule | The customer sets the test and the vendor applies it. | Fin's qualified lead is priced against a definition the buyer writes. |
| External authority | Someone outside both parties decides. | Chargeflow is paid a percentage of the amount an issuer actually returns, nothing on a miss. A HackerOne report counts when program triage validates it. |
What the eleven entries show
Silence can be acceptance, or verification can be
Fin counts a resolution at $0.99 when the customer confirms the answer or goes quiet for 24 hours after Fin's last reply. Zendesk runs the opposite design: an assisted escalation and a contained resolution are free tiers, and only a verified resolution, checked over 72 hours, bills at $1.50. Both are legitimate. They are different products with the same name, and a buyer holding both contracts is holding two clocks.
The correction rule is where the money is
Fin deducts a resolution if the customer returns to the same conversation, even across billing periods. PostHog charges $15 per pull request from its self-driving product, re-checks it during a soak window, and refunds one that "wasn't worth paying for." Most entries publish no correction rule at all, which in practice means the vendor's meter is final. When you compare outcome vendors, compare this line first.
Sometimes nobody in the deal decides
Chargeflow takes 25% of the amount a chargeback recovers and nothing on a miss, so the issuer's decision is the outcome. HackerOne pays a bounty when a program's triage validates a report, with the bounty set per program. External authority is the cleanest definition to reconcile because neither party can move it, and the hardest to negotiate because neither party can move it.
The unit is not always the outcome
Horizon3's NodeZero verifies that a finding is mitigated with a one-click retest, but it prices per asset, not per finding. HubSpot moved its Customer Agent to $0.50 per resolved conversation, defined as handled with no human handoff. Sierra describes outcome-based pricing without publishing a rate. A published unit and a published price are separate facts, and the registry records each on its own.
Why this matters
- If you buy outcomes: three vendors means three definitions of done, three clocks, and three correction rules, none of which you wrote. The invoice line "12,483 resolutions" is only as meaningful as the definition behind it. Finance asks "says who?" for a reason.
- If you sell outcomes: the definition is the contract. The vendors above publish theirs, and the ones with a stated window and correction rule are easier to buy from because a customer can predict the invoice.
- If you build with outcomes: the four fields are the schema. Any system that has to act on "it counted" needs the unit, the authority, the window, and the correction rule in machine-readable form, not in a help-center article.
How Spoolis uses the same four fields
A Spool is one of these definitions made executable: the unit and the evidence it needs, who judges, the review window that decides when provisional becomes final, and the correction rule, which on a Spoolis record is a superseding receipt rather than a silent edit. The registry and the Spool share their fields on purpose. Read a vendor's entry, and you are reading the outline of the agreement a buyer and that vendor could freeze before the month starts. The registry itself is neutral: it records what vendors publish and never scores them.
Scope
- Every entry is drawn from the vendor's own published material, retrieved on the date shown in the registry. Prices and definitions change; the retrieval date is part of the record.
- Entries without a primary source on file are marked awaiting verification and are shown as such.
- Prices are never averaged across unrelated outcome types. A resolution and a pull request are not the same unit.
- Naming a vendor here describes its published terms. It is not a partnership, endorsement, or adoption in either direction.
Start with your own definition
If you sell an outcome, write yours in the same four fields and see whether a customer could predict an invoice from it. If you buy one, pull the vendor's entry from the registry and check which of the four lines is missing. Then run one outcome through the sandbox and read the receipt: the unit, the judge, the window, and the correction path are all on it.
Notes
- Fin pricing and resolution definition: fin.ai pricing page, read September 17, 2026.
- Zendesk automated resolution tiers and the 72-hour verification: Zendesk help center, read September 17, 2026.
- HubSpot Customer Agent price change to $0.50 per resolved conversation, effective April 14, 2026: HubSpot company news.
- PostHog self-driving pricing and refund rule: PostHog docs, read September 17, 2026.
- Chargeflow pricing, HackerOne bounty validation, Horizon3 1-click verify, and Sierra's outcome-based pricing post: each vendor's own page, linked above, read September 17, 2026.
- The full set, including entries awaiting verification, is on the registry with retrieval dates and source links.