Retrieval Cost and Latency Review (Retention)

Retrieval Cost and Latency Review (Retention)

1. 01

   Pull 30 days of query volume, p95 latency, and storage growth per client index

   Export from the vector platform's metrics endpoint or billing console. Split by index so a single runaway collection cannot hide behind a blended average.

2. 02

   Compare month-over-month spend against the retainer line item that funds it

   If retrieval cost grew more than 15% while query volume grew less than 15%, the gap is index bloat or oversized embeddings, not client demand.

3. 03

   Sample 50 queries and score whether each returned chunk was actually used in the final answer

   Unused chunks still cost money. A retrieval hit rate below 60% means the embedding model or chunk size needs revisiting before the next invoice.

4. 04

   Check whether the client's data volume justifies a dedicated index or can share a pooled cluster

   Small accounts under roughly 500,000 vectors rarely need isolation. Pooling them cuts fixed infrastructure cost without touching query quality.

5. 05

   Document the lock-in exposure for any proprietary managed service in the stack

   Record export format, re-embedding cost, and estimated migration hours. Clients ask this question during renewal, and an answer prepared in advance shortens the conversation.

6. 06

   Present a one-page cost and quality summary to the account lead before the client renewal window opens

   Include the three numbers the client will ask about: monthly retrieval spend, median response time, and answer accuracy trend. Flag any index scheduled for re-embedding.

7. 07

   Schedule the next review and assign an owner for any remediation item

   Unassigned optimization work does not happen. Put a name and a date against every action item before the meeting ends.