Cycle budget

Desks argue "should we cycle for this spread?" with instinct; warranty managers answer with a cap; this tool answers with a price. A cycle destroys a little capacity forever — that has a value. And it spends one unit of a finite warranty budget — that has a shadow price whenever the budget rations you below the days worth cycling. The dispatch threshold is whichever is higher, and the tool says which one is doing the work: "cycles are worth £41 each; it's the warranty doing the rationing, not the wear." The second cycle and the augmentation window are the same beliefs read at the year and asset-life horizons — a policy difference and a re-simulated remainder, never a partial formula.

Named simplifications, so the tool can't oversell itself: spread is the achieved spread — market depth and dispatch quality are your problem, not the model's. Degradation is linear in cycles and time on the ranges you state — a belief container, not electrochemistry; bring your OEM's curve as a range, not a point. The charge-price leg is a level, not a shape. Augmentation restores nameplate and inherits the remaining warranty budget. And spreads stay flat over the life unless you say otherwise with drift: — omitting it flatters augmentation, and the tool warns you so.

The tool prices your stated beliefs; it never claims the market will look like your ranges, and it isn't a dispatch optimiser. Sources: Douglas Hubbard on calibrated 90% intervals (How to Measure Anything).