AI & Technical question

Design the MVP for partner billing and usage attribution on the Claude Platform for traffic sold through a reseller or embedded in another platform. What core entities, metering events, attribution rules, and invoice flows would you ship first, and where would you standardize versus allow custom partner terms to balance scalability, accurate revenue recognition, and abuse/compliance risk?

Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.

What this question tests

Ability to design a billing and attribution system MVP that balances scalability with the reality of custom partner deals.

Define the core entities needed: partner account, end customer account nested under the partner, usage event, and invoice, since attribution requires knowing whose usage counts toward whose bill.
Define metering events at the API call level with partner and end customer identifiers attached, so usage can be rolled up correctly even when traffic is embedded in another platform.
Define attribution rules for the common cases first, direct reseller markup and revenue share, standardizing the calculation logic rather than building custom logic per partner.
Design the invoice flow to support a small set of standard terms, net billing periods and revenue share percentages, while allowing a config level override for negotiated custom terms rather than custom code per partner.
Standardize the entity model and metering pipeline since that underpins accurate revenue recognition and audit needs, but allow custom terms at the commercial layer, like specific percentages or payment terms, to stay flexible for partner negotiations.
Address abuse and compliance by requiring metering data to be tamper evident and reconciled against partner reported usage where relevant, flagging discrepancies before invoicing.

Separates what must be standardized, entity model, metering pipeline, from what can flex per partner, commercial terms, rather than treating it all as one decision.
Names concrete core entities and event structure instead of staying abstract about a billing system.
Addresses revenue recognition accuracy explicitly as a reason to standardize the underlying pipeline.
Builds in reconciliation against partner reported usage as an abuse and accuracy safeguard.

Building fully custom logic per partner from day one, which will not scale as partner count grows.
Ignoring revenue recognition accuracy or audit requirements in the MVP scope.