Optimize finops commitment portfolio distributionally robust

What it's for

Chooses cloud commitments that remain economical when the demand forecast's probabilities are wrong within a tested range, with the robustness premium visible.

What you give it

Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.

{
  "maximum_upfront_commitment": 250,
  "portfolios": [
    {
      "id": "flexible",
      "scenario_costs": [
        180,
        220,
        300
      ],
      "upfront_commitment": 50
    },
    {
      "id": "balanced",
      "scenario_costs": [
        150,
        180,
        260
      ],
      "upfront_commitment": 150
    },
    {
      "id": "committed",
      "scenario_costs": [
        120,
        160,
        400
      ],
      "upfront_commitment": 300
    }
  ],
  "scenario_probabilities": [
    0.2,
    0.6,
    0.2
  ],
  "total_variation_radius": 0.1
}

What you get back

This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.

{
  "assumptions": [
    "Each row is a complete feasible commitment portfolio over the same cost unit, horizon, demand scenarios, contract eligibility, migration assumptions, and operational constraints.",
    "The total-variation radius is a governed probability-ambiguity budget validated against forecast error; it moves probability only among represented scenarios.",
    "Distributional robustness cannot protect against omitted demand regimes, provider failure, unusable commitments, contract changes, or cost categories absent from every scenario."
  ],
  "configuration": {
    "maximum_upfront_commitment": 250,
    "maximum_worst_case_cost": null,
    "scenario_count": 3,
    "total_variation_radius": 0.1
  },
  "decision": "distributionally_robust_finops_portfolio_supported",
  "method": "finops_total_variation_distributionally_robust_selection_v1",
  "portfolio_diagnostics": [
    {
      "ambiguity_cost_premium": 11,
      "feasible": true,
      "largest_probability_shifts": [
        {
          "nominal_probability": 0.2,
          "probability_change": 0.1,
          "scenario_index": 2,
          "worst_case_probability": 0.3
        },
        {
          "nominal_probability": 0.2,
          "probability_change": -0.1,
          "scenario_index": 0,
          "worst_case_probability": 0.1
        }
      ],
      "nominal_expected_cost": 190,
      "portfolio_id": "balanced",
      "truncated_probability_shift_count": 0,
      "upfront_commitment": 150,
      "worst_case_expected_cost": 201
    },
    {
      "ambiguity_cost_premium": 12,
      "feasible": true,
      "largest_probability_shifts": [
        {
          "nominal_probability": 0.2,

How it works

Constrained optimization — Pick the best feasible option under real limits — budget, headcount, dependencies, capacity — rather than ranking a list and hoping it fits.

1. 1 Freeze complete feasible commitment portfolios, aligned total-cost scenarios, nominal probabilities, contract/technical constraints, and an out-of-time calibrated probability-ambiguity radius.
2. 2 For each portfolio reallocate probability mass from low- to high-cost represented scenarios within the exact total-variation budget to calculate worst-case expected cost.
3. 3 Enforce upfront and worst-cost constraints, compare robust and nominal choices, disclose the ambiguity premium and adversarial weights, and stress omitted demand regimes separately.

Before you trust it

Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.

Calibrating it to your org

Calibration workflow

1. 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
2. 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
3. 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
4. 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
5. 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
6. 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.

Call it from your AI

You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.

gitrevio_capabilities_search
  { "q": "select a complete finops commitment portfolio" }
  → finds "optimize_finops_commitment_portfolio_distributionally_robust"

gitrevio_capability_describe
  { "capability_id": "optimize_finops_commitment_portfolio_distributionally_robust" }
  → returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page

gitrevio_capability_run
  { "capability_id": "optimize_finops_commitment_portfolio_distributionally_robust", "arguments": { ... } }
  → returns the result shown above

Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.

Related tools

See every tool in Finance & unit economics →