Interactive Savings Plans What‑If Simulation & Adjustable Coverage in Commitment Recommendations

Why is it useful?
Cloudability’s current commitment recommendations are system‑driven, based on historical usage and a single recommended value, which does not reflect how MSPs and customers actually make commitment decisions in practice. Teams need to explore multiple options side by side, balance risk vs savings, and align with seasonality and customer strategy, but today they must manually change filters and interpret each scenario one at a time (no visual comparison).
A combined what‑if simulation mode plus manual coverage adjustment would let users model future Savings Plans scenarios without touching production data, test different coverage percentages, and instantly see the financial impact of conservative vs aggressive strategies, making it much easier to build and explain a commitment plan to customers.

Who would benefit from it?
    •    MSPs and cloud resellers who need to propose multiple commitment strategies (low‑risk vs high‑savings) to their end customers and justify their recommendations.
    •    FinOps, finance, and procurement teams who must understand trade‑offs between commitment levels, payment options, and time horizons before approving large Savings Plans purchases.
    •    Large enterprises with seasonal or variable workloads that require flexible modeling to align commitments with business cycles, rather than relying on a single static recommendation.

How should it work?
Create a Savings Plans Simulation / What‑If Mode inside Commitment Recommendations with interactive controls:
Scenario sandbox (non‑destructive):
    •    Separate “Simulation Mode” area where changes do not alter production commitment preferences or live recommendations.
    •    Option to temporarily exclude existing commitments to model a clean on‑demand baseline or a renewal‑only strategy.
User‑controlled coverage and options:
    •    A slider or numeric input to set commitment coverage percentage (e.g., 30%–100%) so users can tune aggressiveness according to risk tolerance.
    •    Controls to choose term and payment model for the simulation: 1‑year vs 3‑year and No Upfront / Partial Upfront / All Upfront, with the ability to compare these variants side by side.
    •    Optional filters to include or exclude specific services or scopes (e.g., only EC2, only production accounts) so customers can narrow the modeled portfolio.
Real‑time recalculation and outputs:
    •    Once the slider or options change, recalculate in real time:
    •    Estimated on‑demand spend (no commitments).
    •    Estimated committed spend under the simulated coverage, term, and payment options.
    •    Estimated savings delta and risk indicators (e.g., over‑coverage exposure).
Support simulations for:
    •    A future month or range of months (e.g., next quarter, next 12 months).
    •    A specific customer or tenant in an MSP context, so MSPs can model per‑customer scenarios.
Scenario management and export:
    •    Let users name and save multiple scenarios (for example, “Conservative 50% / 1‑year No Upfront” vs “Aggressive 80% / 3‑year Partial Upfront”).
    •    Provide exports (CSV and PDF) that include on‑demand baseline, simulated committed cost, savings, and coverage so MSPs can use them in customer presentations, proposals, and billing models.