The bill belongs with the party responsible for each verified charging relationship, not automatically with the workflow’s builder. Map Make usage and any separately verified provider arrangement before approving an AI-enabled workflow.
Start with the connection path
Make states that non-AI apps generally use one credit per operation, while AI features can vary with connection type and token or other usage factors. Its guide also describes credit consumption by scenario-triggered features and AI-agent chat.
That evidence rules out assuming every operation has identical credit behaviour. It does not establish the actual external-provider charges for your arrangement. Treat provider-managed and custom provider connections as paths to investigate, not as sufficient evidence of who receives an invoice.
Draw a payer-responsibility map
Use one record for each charging relationship with these fields:
- Workflow and AI activity being authorised.
- Connection path, supported by an evidence reference.
- Account-owning organisation, without credentials.
- Person permitted to change the connection.
- Party approving usage and party paying verified charges.
- Evidence for the charging basis and review date.
- Escalation contact and unresolved questions.
Separate the technical operator from the budget owner. For an Indian agency working for a client, “our developer connected it” is not an adequate answer to “whose budget absorbs ongoing usage?”
Never put keys or tokens in this map. Record a safe reference to the responsible administrator instead.
Ask questions before assigning liability
Ask which documentation explains credit behaviour for the specific feature and connection. What usage factors must the approver understand? Is there evidence of a separate commercial relationship, and who can provide its current terms?
Also ask whether an individual employee’s arrangement is being relied upon for organisational work. Record unknown answers explicitly rather than inferring that a familiar provider name means an existing subscription covers the activity.
These are verification questions and internal responsibility checks, not legal conclusions about contractual liability.
Resolve a hypothetical agency handoff
Suppose a fictional Jaipur agency builds an internal text-classification workflow for a client. The agency operates Make, but the client expects to own ongoing usage. The handoff record lists the connection path yet has no approved payer for one possible charging relationship.
The correct decision is not to estimate an external bill. Stop production expansion until the client and agency supply evidence and sign off who pays each verified charge. A bounded trial should proceed only if a named approver accepts its scope and responsibility.
If replacement access is considered, check the AI tools catalog for access format and saved terms before buying. Marketplace account, code or token offers are not proof of official subscription equivalence.
Sources and scope
Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. Make credits establishes feature- and connection-dependent credit behaviour. The payer map and approval gate are editorial advice; no external-provider charge is asserted.