[Change] § 5.6.1 — State what commitment.amount includes (rate basis, third-party fees, tax) #115

Activity

1. aleksUIX commented on Oct 24, 2026

   

   aleksUIX

   on Oct 24, 2026

   More actions

   Proposed wording and reproducible fixtures: PR #117.

   There is an interaction with #94 to settle before this wording lands.
   That proposal makes pricing[] entries alternatives, so a seller fee in a
   second entry would be another choice rather than an additive charge.

   Including a fixed fee in amount also changes the unit calculation. With
   USD 50,000 committed at USD 25 CPM and a USD 2,500 production fee inside that
   amount, media spend is USD 47,500 and derived_units is 1,900,000 impressions.
   Computing units from all USD 50,000 implies 2,000,000 impressions and a
   USD 52,500 seller total after the fee.

   I suggest resolving the fee basis alongside #94:

   • Select one pricing alternative. Do not sum alternative rows.
   • Keep applicable one-time seller charges outside the unit rate. Selected
     delta_flat options cover the initial cases; a general mandatory-fee
     structure needs its own decision.
   • For fee-inclusive spend, use (amount - flat_charges) / agreed_rate * rate_per.
   • For a units commitment, use amount / rate_per * agreed_rate + flat_charges
     for the seller total, and apply budget bounds to that total.

   I have prepared focused wording and supporting calculation vectors. They keep
   floor composition and automatic acceptance with the separate #30 discussion;
   passing the arithmetic does not establish acceptance. Tax-inclusive amounts
   need a defined tax amount or calculation before the same derivation can apply.

   Member of the IAB Tech Lab Agentic Taskforce, commenting in a personal capacity.
2. KonstantinMirin commented on Oct 25, 2026

   

   KonstantinMirin

   on Oct 25, 2026

   More actions

   Thanks, @dineshbhat. Postindustria (IAB Tech Lab member) supports defining commitment.amount (§ 5.6.1). Two parts conflict with other open change requests:

   1. Fees as pricing[] entries. The text says a seller cost "appears as its own pricing[] entry and is included in amount". Our cost-method change request (#94) makes entries alternatives: "The buyer commits under exactly one". As @aleksUIX notes, a fee there is another choice, not a charge. Selected delta_flat options (§ 3.1 Selectable structure) carry optional seller charges, as PR #117 proposes. A mandatory charge, such as production, still needs a home.
   2. Gross or net. amount is "priced at pricing[].agreed_rate" and excludes "agency commission". That holds only if agreed_rate is net of commission. BCN's ordered adjustments change request (#103) makes it the rate before commission: in the print example (#102), agreed_rate is 20,900 and seller_rate is 17,765, after 15% agency commission. They can't both hold. Our revision on #94 avoids the choice: amount uses the same terms as agreed_rate, whichever basis the working group picks.

   Open questions:

   1. How should a mandatory seller charge, such as production or data, be represented: as a § 3.1 option the buyer must select (§ 3.1 has max_select but no minimum today), as a fee object on the line item, or inside the unit rate? The fee-basis PR (#117) leaves this open.
   2. Should pricing[].agreed_rate be gross of agency commission, as the ordered adjustments change request (#103) proposes, so that a commission-exclusive amount is priced at the rate after commission, or net of it, as this issue reads it? Open question 3 in our reply on #30 adds a third option: a rate_basis declared per pricing[] entry.

   Analyzed and generated with the help of Claude, fully reviewed by me.