Allocate automation usage from identifiable scenario and run evidence, then apply a written internal rule to shared workloads. Do not present a split of one workspace total as if it proves each team’s consumption.
Move from aggregate usage to attributable work
Make documents credit-usage views at dashboard, subscription, per-run, scenario, diagram, builder/module and scenario-history levels. These provide different levels of visibility for an investigation.
The editorial task is to connect that evidence to organisational responsibility. A scenario name alone may be misleading: a workflow maintained by finance could serve several departments. Record the beneficiary and the maintainer separately, and keep the same review period across evidence records.
Create a chargeback evidence packet
For every allocation line, record:
- Review dates and scenario identifier.
- Relevant run references and observed credit usage.
- Benefiting team or teams.
- Evidence reference and collection date.
- Classification: direct, shared or unresolved.
- Allocation rule and approving manager.
- Allocated credits, rounding adjustment and reviewer.
Keep supplier charges separate from internal allocations. A team-level credit allocation is not automatically a rupee invoice. If finance later converts an allocation into a monetary charge, it needs its own documented basis.
Use identifiers and aggregate counts rather than copying customer payloads into the worksheet. Missing attribution should remain visible in an unresolved bucket.
Evaluate a hypothetical shared workload
Suppose a fictional Bengaluru company records 900 credits for an identified set of runs during a defined month. Evidence attributes 300 to a finance-only scenario, 200 to a sales-only scenario and 400 to a shared reporting scenario.
Management agrees, as internal policy, to divide the shared portion equally. Finance receives 500 allocated credits and sales 400. The arithmetic reconciles to 900, but only 500 credits were directly attributable before the policy split.
Label the 200-credit shared allocation to each team as “policy allocation”, not “native team billing”. Evaluate the result by checking that every observed credit appears once, no run is counted twice and the shared rule has written approval.
Resolve disputes before issuing chargebacks
Stop chargeback publication if dates differ, shared usage lacks an approved rule or the allocated sum fails to reconcile. Next, investigate the disputed scenario and runs rather than distributing the gap proportionately without explanation.
If teams need additional access, compare the AI tools catalog only after identifying the workload; check 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 usage tracking establishes the listed usage views. Team attribution, chargeback arithmetic and shared-workload rules are editorial recommendations and internal policy examples, not claims of native Make billing functionality.