Skip to content

Pro weekly quota meter accelerated ~2.4x mid-window, then returned to normal (Aug 14) #38728

Open

Description

@Morrlis

Summary

On a ChatGPT Pro account, the same 7-day codex quota bucket suddenly consumed weekly allowance at roughly 2.4x the adjacent observed rate during a bounded period on 2026-08-14, without a plan, bucket, reset timestamp, or service-tier change.

The abnormal interval ended later that day, but the quota percentage was not restored.

Environment

  • Plan reported by Codex: pro
  • Codex CLI: 0.145.0
  • Platform: Linux x86_64
  • Rate-limit bucket: limit_id=codex
  • Window: 10080 minutes
  • resets_at=1787196676 (2026-08-20 03:31:16 UTC)
  • Service tier: default; no Fast-mode traffic in the measured slices
  • Reset credits available: 0
  • Usage was distributed across a main Linux host and a second Linux host. A third workstation was also checked and cannot account for the discrepancy.

All figures below were reconstructed from local Codex JSONL token_count events. Prompt and response text was not used or uploaded.

Observed phases

Times are UTC. API-equivalent values use one consistent set of OpenAI's published standard text-token rates. They are a comparison metric, not a claim about the undisclosed subscription quota formula.

Period Weekly meter Meter change Tokens API-equivalent API-equivalent per point
2026-08-14 00:01–08:12 34% → 38% used +4 pp 1.074B $78.17 $19.54/pp
2026-08-14 08:12–17:08 38% → 61% used +23 pp 1.272B $186.54 $8.11/pp
2026-08-14 17:08–19:34 61% → 62% used +1 pp 280.8M $18.02 $18.02/pp
2026-08-14 21:00–2026-08-15 09:21 63% → 67% used +4 pp 328.7M $90.18 $22.55/pp

The account therefore moved from $19.54 of comparable API-equivalent activity per percentage point to $8.11/pp, then returned to $18–$22.55/pp. The quota bucket and reset timestamp remained the same throughout.

Model mix in the abnormal interval

Model API-equivalent
gpt-5.5 $120.14
gpt-5.6-sol $32.16
gpt-5.6-luna $34.23
Total $186.53 (rounding difference vs $186.54 above)

The expensive-model mix explains why this interval should consume more allowance than a Luna-only interval. It does not explain the abrupt change relative to the immediately adjacent periods: at the preceding observed ratio, $186.54 corresponds to about 9.5 percentage points, not 23. Even using the lowest previously observed ratio for this account ($16.42/pp), the interval corresponds to about 11.4 points. This leaves approximately 11–14 percentage points not explained by the complete local token journals.

Ruled out

  • No plan change (pro throughout).
  • No bucket change (codex, 10080-minute window throughout).
  • No weekly reset during the anomaly; resets_at remained effectively identical.
  • No secondary quota bucket replacing the weekly bucket.
  • No banked reset or reset-credit redemption.
  • Activity on the second host and workstation was checked; it does not account for the gap.
  • The meter returned to its previous range later without a client/config change.

Expected behavior

For the same account, rate-limit bucket, service tier, and published model price basis, weekly quota accounting should not change by roughly 2.4x for several hours without an explicit entitlement or pricing change.

Request

Please investigate this account's weekly Codex quota accounting between 2026-08-14 08:12 and 17:08 UTC.

Specifically:

  1. Did the effective weekly capacity or model weighting change server-side during this interval?
  2. Was any non-token usage source charged to the same bucket but omitted from Codex token_count journals?
  3. If the 11–14 percentage-point gap was erroneous, can the affected allowance be restored?
  4. Can the product expose the calculation inputs that advance used_percent, so users can distinguish intended model weighting from an accounting defect?

Activity

  1. added
    bugSomething isn't working
    CLIIssues related to the Codex CLI
    rate-limitsIssues related to rate limits, quotas, and token usage reporting
    on Aug 15, 2026
  2. Morrlis commented on Aug 15, 2026

    @Morrlis
    Author

    I also submitted this through the Codex CLI /feedback flow.

    Uploaded feedback thread ID: 01a004c1-e702-7921-8431-d46c9e539ce0

    The textual report and this issue URL were uploaded successfully. The client warned that its automatically generated codex doctor --json report timed out and that the new feedback session rollout attachment was unavailable, so the sanitized measurements in the issue body remain the complete evidence package.

  3. mickobizzle commented on Aug 21, 2026

    @mickobizzle

    MY TRUST IN OPENAI'S TOKEN METERING AT PLUS HAS FALLEN

    removal of 5-hour gate and Tibo's repeated reset gifts drove me toward high Sol usage.

    it worked; i loved it. but NOW IT FEELS LIKE I'M BURNING TOKENS MUCH FASTER, even at Terra.
    i'm ready to turn the key on Pro x5, but until someone clarifies the metering change, i'm going to wait.

    i'll pay 5x the price of Plus IF AND ONLY IF i get 5x the value -- measured in pre- whatever-this-is-Incident consumption.

    meanwhile I'm looking at open-weights alternatives as i consider offloading workflows from Codex.

  4. FromAriel commented on Aug 27, 2026

    @FromAriel

    Cross-linking this to #41220, a new meta tracker for abnormal Codex usage/quota depletion and usage-accounting inconsistencies. This report is one of the strongest bounded examples because the account, 7-day bucket, reset timestamp, and service tier remained stable while the effective meter rate shifted ~2.4x and later returned to the prior range. The meta issue does not assume every linked report has the same root cause; it is intended to correlate server-side timelines and separate entitlement/accounting defects from background/workflow amplification.

  5. jin44194649 commented on Sep 30, 2026

    @jin44194649

    Related current data point from Sep 29, 2026 (America/Chicago): on a $200 ChatGPT Pro account, the weekly meter reset/upgrade time was 18:09. The main ChatGPT Work session lasted about three hours (to ~21:09) and was used for eight chapters of writing/review. By 22:32 the weekly meter showed 89% remaining. I am not claiming the same root cause as this issue, but the effective consumption was unexpectedly high and the UI did not provide enough task-level attribution to reconcile the drop. I added the fuller timeline in #40527.

    This may fit the broader “effective consumption rate changed unexpectedly” symptom family. If there were recent weighting, entitlement, or accounting changes, documenting the effective rate would help users distinguish intended policy from a regression.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    CLIIssues related to the Codex CLIbugSomething isn't workingrate-limitsIssues related to rate limits, quotas, and token usage reporting

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions