Separate the activity
Conversation turns and coding hours stay distinct before any weighting occurs, so the source of pressure remains visible.
Chat should not spend like code.
Separate conversation from coding, set the relative weights yourself, and see what a protected weekly allowance would change.
Make the tradeoff visible
One meter hides two kinds of work.
This is a planning model, not an account reader. Use your own expected activity and weights to compare one shared allowance with a policy that protects coding capacity.
Direct manipulation first
Move the capacity. Watch the boundary move.
Keyboard-ready allocation controls make the policy tangible before you enter a single assumption. Move capacity between chat and coding and inspect the evolving split.
Chat capacity
Coding capacity
Even split / 50% chat / 50% coding
Weekly assumptions
Build the usage plan
Expected conversation turns this week.
Expected active coding hours.
Your planning weight, not a vendor rate.
Your planning weight, not token metering.
A personal planning ceiling you choose.
What the result means
Model the policy. Do not invent the meter.
Every output comes from visible assumptions. No OpenAI account, price, token, entitlement, or live limit data is accessed.
Choose the weights
The relative cost is a planning decision you control. It is never presented as OpenAI’s private metering formula.
Compare the policy
A shared pool reveals aggregate pressure. Protected pools reveal whether chat or coding becomes the binding constraint.
Three useful questions
Pressure-test the allowance before the week starts.
What is actually heavy?
Change one weight at a time and watch each activity’s contribution, rather than arguing from an opaque total.
WeightWhat deserves protection?
Switch to protected pools and reserve the share of capacity that deep coding work needs.
AllocateWhat will you carry forward?
Export the assumptions and computed result as a durable weekly plan that can be revised later.
PlanA clearer weekly boundary