Sample case study · AWS cost analysis & optimization

Under GxP,
$2,401,346 a year
measured.

Six weeks with Copperwick Therapeutics, Inc., a fictional mRNA medicines company with 48 AWS accounts in scope, eleven of them validated. The Analysis found $4,310,044 a year, net of Copperwick’s private pricing discount. Copperwick’s engineers put $2,526,309 of it in place before week six, and their Cost and Usage Report measured $2,401,346.This is the case for a regulated, validated environment, where change control and two freezes decide which savings can land in six weeks and which wait. The gate is three times the fee, $105,000 a year; the measured savings were 13.1% of the bill. It shows the method, not a typical result.

Copperwick Therapeutics, Inc. is a fictional company: every account, figure, program, and person on this page is simulated. The AWS prices are real list prices, retrieved October 13 and 17, 2026.

Three brushed-steel liquid-nitrogen storage dewars in a dark cold room, white fog rising from their lids in steel-blue light, small amber status lamps lit on two of them.
$1,623,688
A month on the bill at week one, at list
$4,310,044
A year in savings identified, net
13.1%
Of the bill, measured at week six
8.7%
Of the bill sits in validated systems
A sample engagement

Copperwick is fictional.
The work is not.

Copperwick Therapeutics, Inc. does not exist. We built it to show what this engagement produces for a regulated company: an AWS organization of 212 accounts, 48 of them in scope and eleven of those validated, an mRNA research platform, a clinical data environment, and manufacturing systems under 21 CFR Part 11, simulated resource by resource and priced at AWS list prices, with eleven Copperwick people who make the decisions real owners make. Then we ran the six-week Optimization against it, week by week, and wrote the reports.

Copperwick Therapeutics is fictional. Its people, programs, products, accounts, and figures are invented for this sample, and any resemblance to a real company, person, program, or medicine is coincidental. The eight reports are the real deliverables, written the way we write them for a client, and they agree with each other to the dollar because every figure comes from one deterministic simulation. The engagement is dated February 23 to April 2, 2026, and priced at the AWS list prices retrieved October 13 and 17, 2026. Our clients’ bills stay confidential, so this is how we can show you every page.

The client

Copperwick Therapeutics, Inc.

Business
mRNA medicines: one approved medicine for a rare metabolic disorder, a Phase 3 program (Basalt), and a Phase 1/2 program (Feldspar)
People
2,400 employees, about 600 of them in research and 140 in IT and research computing, in Durham, North Carolina
AWS
212 accounts in one organization; the engagement covers 48: research computing, the scientific data platform, lab sandboxes, clinical development, and the manufacturing and quality systems
Validated
Eleven of the 48 accounts are validated GxP systems and six are qualified infrastructure, together 8.7% of the bill
The bill
$1,526,267 a month net of the private pricing discount at week one ($1,623,688 at list): $18,315,196 a year
Sponsor
Adaeze Whitfield, Chief Information Officer
Lead
Grace Mbeki, Senior Director, Cloud Platform
Finance
Rafael Quintero, Vice President, Financial Planning and Analysis
Quality
Dr. Lorraine Osei, Senior Director, Quality Assurance, Computerized Systems

The bill grew 20.5%.
Quality asked a different question.

Copperwick’s in-scope AWS bill went from $1,318,400 a month in February 2025 to $1,589,100 in January 2026, as the machine learning team took on p4d training instances and cryo-EM processing moved to AWS. The board asked for a cost review before the fiscal 2027 budget and before the private pricing agreement comes up for renewal in mid-2027. The CIO wanted an outside view of research computing.

The head of quality wanted something else: assurance that a cost project would not put a validated system out of its validated state. So the engagement started with her rules, and every finding carried a class that said what it takes to change it. Adaeze Whitfield signed the six-week Optimization, Grace Mbeki led it day to day, Rafael Quintero made the purchase decision, and Dr. Lorraine Osei decided what could change in a validated system, and when.

The engagement
The Optimization: six weeks, February 23 to April 2, 2026, at a fixed $35,000. The Analysis is its first two weeks, so $35,000 is everything Copperwick paid; bought alone, the Analysis is $25,000, and Copperwick did not.
The gate
Half the fee only if the annualized savings in place at week six, measured on Copperwick’s own Cost and Usage Report, reach three times the fee: $105,000 a year.
The access
A read-only role in every account, with an explicit deny on reading any bucket, table, secret, parameter, or log, and the Cost and Usage Report through Athena.
The rule for changes
Owners approved every change, and Copperwick’s engineers applied it, through their own change process or the GxP change advisory board. Vantalect held no write access and bought nothing.
How it went

Six weeks, as the sponsor saw them.

Each week ended with a report, and every report is below. The dates in each week are the engagement’s own, and two freezes, the clinical freeze and a manufacturing campaign, shaped weeks three to six.

  1. Week 1
    February 23 to 27
    The Analysis

    Baseline, inventory, and the ground rules.

    The read-only role went into all 48 accounts on Tuesday, February 24, through Copperwick’s own StackSets pipeline. In the validated and qualified accounts, deploying it was itself a GxP standard change: Dr. Osei approved it, and a QA delegate in Computerized Systems Quality signed the notice to QA that day. The supplier assessment (Thursday, February 12) and the access approval (Thursday, February 19) had both been done before kickoff. Twelve months of the Cost and Usage Report came with it, tied to each month’s invoice. The bill had stepped up with the science: $1,318,400 to $1,589,100 a month, mostly from a p4d training fleet and cryo-EM processing moving to AWS.

    Some of the estate was already well run, and the baseline said so: a fully used three-year Compute Savings Plan at $150 an hour, Direct Connect ports sized to the instrument uploads they carry, and an EKS research platform already on Karpenter, Spot, and Graviton. None of that became a finding. The week’s most important output was Dr. Osei’s four ground rules, agreed with Daniel Achterberg at kickoff, which are set out below and which every later finding carries.

    The calendar. Kickoff on Monday, February 23; read-only access on Tuesday; the finance session with Rafael Quintero on the private pricing agreement on Wednesday; the freeze calendars from Ines Halvorsen and Daniel Achterberg on Thursday; the baseline report on Friday, February 27.

  2. Week 2
    March 2 to 6
    The Analysis

    Analysis and readout.

    Every saving was priced in a fixed order, so nothing was counted twice: 36 findings, priced as 41 changes in 48 accounts, $4,310,044 a year net of the discount, 23.5% of the $18,315,196 in-scope bill ($4,585,154 at list). Fifteen of the 41 changes touch validated or qualified systems, and the Analysis said where each one stood before anyone asked.

    The savings review on Thursday, March 5, put every change in front of its owner and QA, and the owners decided at the table. They approved 37 of the 41 changes, $3,873,926 a year net, and declined four, $436,118. Copperwick’s team had also watched the GxP change advisory board meet on March 3, to learn the evidence the board asks for.

    Decisions at the readout. The roadmap, finding by finding; the four declined changes and their reasons; the thirteen approved changes that wait on an event their owners named; and the commitment decision, set for Thursday, March 19. The sponsor readout was Friday, March 6.

  3. Week 3
    March 9 to 13
    The Optimization

    Quick wins.

    19 changes went in, 18 of them counted at $1,796,936 a year net, 9.8% of the bill: waste removed under a register the owners signed, an idle p4d.24xlarge released and SageMaker GPU notebooks stopped when idle, non-production schedules, gp2 volumes moved to gp3 in the research accounts, S3 gateway endpoints, and lifecycle rules on the data lake. The tar job for the oldest sequencer runs ran March 9 to 12. On Thursday, March 12, gp2 to gp3 went onto the GMP systems before their freeze began, as a GxP standard change with an executed installation checklist and notice to QA; the log-retention and Config changes, L-2 and L-3, went into qualified accounts the same way.

    S3-4 went in too, but objects move tiers only after 30 days without access, so nothing can be measured before week six. It counts nothing toward the gate, and its first measurement window opens May 11. One change came out: L-4 would have limited CloudTrail data events on research buckets to writes, and Rosalind Tran, the Chief Information Security Officer, reversed it on Wednesday, March 11, before it was applied, because the read events feed the insider-risk detection for sequence designs. The statement of work counts a change approved at the readout and reversed later at its estimate, $35,194 a year, so the guarantee cannot be met by approving a change and never making it.

    The calendar. Program Basalt’s database lock was Friday, March 13, and the clinical freeze had been in force since March 2: no change touched a system inside it.

  4. Week 4
    March 16 to 20
    The Optimization

    Spot, a file system, a schedule, and the commitment.

    Four changes worth $729,373 a year net, which brought the total in place to 22 changes and $2,526,309 a year at their estimates, 13.8% of the bill, before anything was measured. The genomics Batch pipelines moved to Spot on Monday, March 16, but only after the price table showed that the On-Demand instance type they had been using saved too little on Spot to justify the interruptions: the new environments draw from a cheaper instance type, with the type they run on today as a second pool, and the estimate prices every Spot hour at the cheaper type’s mean and adds an allowance for retried work. The genomics Lustre file system had been provisioned at 64 TiB and 1,000 MB/s per TiB for a peak that never came: its 90-day peak was 14.8 GB/s, and the replacement is 48 TiB at 500 MB/s per TiB (24 GB/s), above the peak. The next step down would have sat below it, so it was rejected.

    On Tuesday, March 17, the GxP change advisory board approved a weekday schedule on the GMP validation environments, which hold no GxP records, and it ran in the release window on Thursday, March 19. On Thursday, March 19, Rafael Quintero, with Adaeze Whitfield, approved a one-year No Upfront Compute Savings Plan at $50 an hour, bought that afternoon in cw-cicd, a member of the sharing group Copperwick limited to the 48 in-scope accounts. It saves $148,682 a year. The existing three-year plan stays fully used after every change, deferred ones included, which is what sized the new one; a three-year plan waits for the 2027 renewal, and the p4d plan was declined at the readout.

    The calendar. The GMP campaign freeze began Monday, March 16, for three clinical-supply batches, and none of the week’s changes touches a system inside it. The board met Tuesday, March 17; the commitment was decided Thursday, March 19.

  5. Week 5
    March 23 to 27
    The Optimization

    The freezes, the guardrails, and the board.

    No savings were counted this week, by design, because every counted change was already in place. What went in was the nine guardrails, GR-1 to GR-9, each with one owner and built as code: a VPC template with S3 gateway endpoints, a service control policy that refuses new gp2 volumes, Spot-by-default Batch environments, log retention in the account baseline, a throughput review before any new Lustre file system, idle-GPU alarms, notebook auto-stop as an account default, and budgets and anomaly monitors for each account family. One more document set the rule for data: the data-class lifecycle standard says where each kind of data may be stored and who may change it, co-signed by Dr. Osei for its GxP class. No guardrail shortens the retention of a GxP record.

    The guardrails could not go everywhere on day one, and the week shows why. They went into 32 accounts first, six of them qualified, where each went in as a GxP standard change with notice to QA. The GMP freeze ran until Friday, March 27, so the nine GMP and quality accounts get theirs on Monday, March 30, as a standard change with notice to QA; the seven clinical accounts wait for topline and get theirs on Monday, April 27. The deferred validated-system changes went to the board on Tuesday, March 24, each with its validation impact assessment.

    The calendar. The GMP freeze ended Friday, March 27; the clinical freeze ran to Friday, April 24, topline. The board voted on the last two change requests on Tuesday, March 31.

  6. Week 6
    March 30 to April 2
    The Optimization

    Measure and hand over.

    Every change was measured on the Cost and Usage Report the same way: the cost of the changed resources over the seven days before the change against the seven days after it, annualized, at public On-Demand prices, so the Savings Plans are never counted twice, and then net of the private pricing discount, applied once. Spot is measured at the Spot price paid, and the two volume-driven changes are measured per genome processed, so a slow lab week cannot read as a saving. 22 changes measured $2,401,346 a year net, 95.1% of the $2,526,309 estimated for them, and every miss is published at its measured value. Six measured at their estimate, ten came within 91% to 100% of it, and four came in below 90%: S-1, S-3a, W-4, and EF-1. Scientists overrode workstation auto-stop during a structure campaign (S-1), an executed qualification protocol held a validation environment on for several nights (S-3a), snapshots share blocks so deleting one freed less than the estimate used (W-4), and less data moved to Infrequent Access than estimated (EF-1). Two beat their estimates, C-1 and W-1: the Savings Plan covered more usage than its estimate priced, and the snapshots owners kept bill written blocks only.

    The handover gave every remaining change an owner and a date, and set the first monthly cost review for Thursday, May 14. The second invoice, $17,500, was issued with the measurement report, so Copperwick paid $35,000 in total.

    The calendar. Measurement on Wednesday, April 1, from the Cost and Usage Report through March 30; the closing readout on Thursday, April 2, because Good Friday, April 3, is a company holiday.

The gate

The gate was $105,000 a year.
The bill showed $2,401,346.

Half the fee rode on one number: annualized savings in place at week six, measured on Copperwick’s own Cost and Usage Report, of at least three times the fee. Every figure here is net of the private pricing discount, the basis the next section explains. Each step from estimate to measurement is in the reports.

Identified
$4,310,044

a year net across 36 findings priced as 41 changes, 23.5% of the in-scope bill, priced in week two.

Put in place
$2,526,309

a year at estimate, in 22 changes their owners approved and Copperwick’s engineers applied: 13.8% of the bill.

Measured on the bill
$2,401,346

a year across those 22 changes: 13.1% of the bill and 95.1% of their estimate, every miss included.

The Optimization’s guarantee

Counted toward the gate: $2,436,540 a year, the measured $2,401,346 plus $35,194 for the one change approved at the readout and reversed later. That clears the $105,000 gate by $2,331,540, and it still clears it without the reversed change. Counted, it is 69.6 times the $35,000 fee. Copperwick paid $35,000 in total, because the Analysis is the Optimization’s first two weeks. The measured savings repay it in about 5 days and net $2,366,346 in the first year. The counted figure decides the gate only.

Still to come: $1,192,737 a year across thirteen changes that are approved and scheduled, each with an owner and a date, and $436,118 a year across four that were declined and can be reopened. S3-4 is in place and worth $119,686 a year, but it cannot be measured yet. Once the deferred changes land, the savings run at $3,713,769 a year, 20.3% of the week-one bill. The Analysis identified 23.5% of the bill and the engagement measured 13.1%. The difference is what validation and the calendar kept out of six weeks, and the next two sections say where each dollar of it went.

Want this gate on your own organization?

Book a call about the Optimization
How the savings are counted

Net of the discount,
because that is what
the bill falls by.

Copperwick has a three-year private pricing agreement with AWS, from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2027: a flat 6% discount on eligible usage and a $27.0 million a year commitment, net of the discount. At this scale an agreement almost certainly exists, so the engagement prices around it instead of pretending it is not there.

Findings are priced at AWS list prices, as the other sample clients’ are, and then stated net of the discount, because the discount is part of what the bill falls by: a saving at list is smaller on Copperwick’s invoice by exactly that percentage. The gate is measured the same way. For each change, the Cost and Usage Report gives the public On-Demand cost of the changed resources before and after, the result is multiplied once by one minus the discount, and the Savings Plans are measured separately by their own identifiers, so none of the three is counted twice. The result at list prices is shown only as context, and it is always labeled as list.

The agreement also had to survive the roadmap. Copperwick’s whole organization spends about $3.1 million a month at list across 212 accounts, 48 of them in scope for this engagement, and the full roadmap would still leave it about $30.7 million a year net against the $27.0 million commitment, $3.7 million above it. The roadmap does not strand the agreement, and the existing three-year Compute Savings Plan at $150 an hour stays fully used after every change.

  • Measured, net
    $2,401,346

    What Copperwick’s bill actually falls by, a year: 13.1% of the in-scope bill.

  • The same changes, at list
    $2,554,624

    Context only. The share of the bill is the same on either basis.

  • Counted, net
    $2,436,540

    The measured savings plus the reversed change at its estimate: the figure that decides the gate.

  • Above the commitment
    $3.7 million

    A year of spend left above the $27.0 million commitment with every change landed.

Validated systems

Savings stop at
the validated state.

Copperwick validates its GxP computerized systems under 21 CFR Part 11 and GAMP 5, using risk-based computer software assurance for testing, and the cloud platform underneath is qualified infrastructure. A cost project has no business making a validated system less validated, so Dr. Osei set four rules at kickoff, and every one of the 41 changes carries the class they give it.

  1. Rule 1 · Normal change process

    Non-GxP

    Accounts that are neither validated nor qualified change through the platform team’s normal process. Most of the savings, and nearly all of the first four weeks, are here.

  2. Rule 2 · Checklist and notice

    GxP standard change

    A pre-approved change type in the qualified infrastructure catalog: like-for-like, reversible, with no effect on a GxP function. It needs a ticket, an executed installation checklist, and notice to QA, not a new validation. gp2 to gp3 on a validated server is one, and so is a log or Config change in a qualified account.

  3. Rule 3 · The Tuesday board

    GxP change request

    A validation impact assessment, risk-based testing, QA approval, a vote of the GxP change advisory board, which meets on Tuesdays, and a release window. A database resize, a storage-class change on GxP records, or a new network path is one.

  4. Rule 4 · Nothing, for any reason

    Freeze

    A freeze stops every change in its scope, with no exception for cost: the clinical freeze from March 2 through topline on April 24, around Program Basalt’s database lock on March 13, and the GMP campaign freeze from March 16 to 27.

  • Fifteen
    changes touch validated or qualified systems

    $709,873 a year net. The validated systems are 8.7% of the bill, so a small share of the savings lives here, and the reports say so instead of inflating it.

  • Four
    in place by week six

    $190,678 a year: three standard changes and one change request the board approved on March 17. The readout approved five to proceed, $225,872 a year; the fifth, L-4, was reversed.

  • Eight
    approved and waiting

    $349,550 a year, each on a freeze, a change request, or a release window, with an owner and a date.

  • Two
    declined, for validation reasons

    $134,451 a year, and the owners gave their reasons. L-4, approved and then reversed, is a further $35,194.

In place: four changes, $190,678 a year.

All counted toward the gate, and each took the route its class requires.

  • S-3a · Daniel Achterberg
    GxP change request

    GMP val environments (LIMS, MES, CDS): weekday schedule except during executed protocols

    $87,540 a year

    The validation environments hold no GxP records, and no freeze covers them. The board approved the change on Tuesday, March 17, and it ran in the next release window.

    In place. Thursday, March 19.

  • E-2a · Daniel Achterberg
    GxP standard change

    gp2 to gp3, the GMP systems before their freeze began (LIMS, MES, CDS, and historian production, and the val environments: 55 TB)

    $12,706 a year

    An online volume change with the same or better performance, reversible, with no effect on a GxP function: an executed installation checklist and notice to QA, and no new validation. It went in before the GMP freeze began.

    In place. Thursday, March 12.

  • L-2 · Grace Mbeki
    GxP standard change

    Log retention: 90 days for a named list of research log groups (220 of 300 TB stored); GxP audit logs keep their SOP retention

    $58,216 a year

    A positive list names the research log groups that move to a shorter retention, so every GxP audit log keeps its SOP retention. A standard change in a qualified account, with notice to QA.

    In place. Tuesday, March 10.

  • L-3 · Grace Mbeki
    GxP standard change

    AWS Config on a daily cadence for instances, network interfaces, and volumes in the high-churn research accounts

    $32,216 a year

    A standard change in a qualified account, with notice to QA: Config tracks the resources that churn all day once a day instead of on every change, in the research accounts only.

    In place. Wednesday, March 11.

Approved, then waiting: eight changes, $349,550 a year.

None was in place by April 2, so none counts toward the gate. Each waits for something Copperwick’s quality system requires, and none is a decision to skip it.

  • S-3b · Ines Halvorsen
    Frozen by the clinical freeze

    SCE val environment: the same schedule

    $45,819 a year

    The clinical freeze runs through Program Basalt’s database lock and topline on April 24. After topline it goes to the board as a change request, voted Tuesday, April 7.

    Target. April 27.

  • R-2 · Ines Halvorsen
    Frozen by the clinical freeze

    SCE grid: 8 to 6 r6i.16xlarge nodes after topline

    $77,785 a year

    The post-topline analyses for the clinical study report are the grid’s busiest weeks, so the cut waits for them. Then it goes to the board as a change request, after a scripted operational qualification regression in the SCE validation environment.

    Target. June 22.

  • E-2b · Ines Halvorsen
    Frozen by the clinical freeze

    gp2 to gp3, the clinical systems in the freeze (SCE production and val, and the biomarker pipelines: 55 TB)

    $12,706 a year

    The clinical systems follow topline, as a GxP standard change with no board vote.

    Target. April 27.

  • B-1b · Ines Halvorsen
    GxP change request

    Clinical biomarker pipelines (GCP-validated), in their own Batch environment in clin-biomarker-prod: the same Spot move, 40% of their work

    $42,020 a year

    An instance-type change is a revalidation under the biomarker pipelines’ validation plan, so it waits for their revalidation.

    Target. May 11.

  • R-3 · Daniel Achterberg
    GxP change request

    LIMS database: db.r5.8xlarge to db.r6i.4xlarge, Multi-AZ (Oracle BYOL)

    $30,698 a year

    It rides on the next release of the system, with a regression of its operational qualification and a month-end performance test.

    Target. May 18.

  • R-4 · Daniel Achterberg
    GxP change request

    MES database: db.r5.4xlarge to db.r5.2xlarge, Multi-AZ (SQL Server SE)

    $50,065 a year

    It waits for the system’s maintenance window after the GMP campaign and the annual periodic review.

    Target. June 15.

  • N-1b · Grace Mbeki
    GxP change request

    S3 gateway endpoints in validated VPCs (8 TB a month)

    $6,006 a year

    A new network path is a change request. The board approved it on Tuesday, March 31, for execution on April 14.

    Target. April 14.

  • S3-3 · Daniel Achterberg
    GxP change request

    GxP raw data older than two years to Glacier Instant Retrieval, Object Lock kept (0.42 PB)

    $84,451 a year

    A storage-class change on GxP records, so it carries a documented retrieval test. The board approved it on Tuesday, March 31, for execution on April 14, and the records keep their retention and their lock.

    Target. April 14.

Declined at the readout: two changes, $134,451 a year.

Each is a fact about a validated system that the Analysis did not have. We did not push.

  • R-5 · Ines Halvorsen
    Frozen by the clinical freeze

    Clinical data repository: 8 to 6 ra3.4xlarge nodes

    $53,688 a year

    “The CDR feeds unblinding. Nobody touches it until topline, and after topline it grows for the integrated summaries.”

    Revisit. In the fall, after the integrated summaries.

  • D-2 · Daniel Achterberg
    GxP change request

    Multi-AZ off on the LIMS and MES val databases

    $80,763 a year

    Dr. Osei declined it. The val environments’ performance qualification includes failover tests, and val must match production’s configuration.

    Revisit. Not revisited: the val configuration must match production.

Approved, then reversed: one change, $35,194 a year.

The statement of work counts a change approved at the readout and reversed later at its estimate, so this one is in the gate math and was never made.

  • L-4 · Grace Mbeki
    GxP standard change

    CloudTrail S3 data events: write events only on research buckets; read and write kept on GxP buckets

    $35,194 a year

    Rosalind Tran, the Chief Information Security Officer, reversed the change on Wednesday, March 11, before it was applied. The read events on research buckets feed the insider-risk detection for sequence designs, and she weighed that detection above the saving. Read and write events stay on for every research and GxP bucket.

    Revisit. Not revisited: the detection it feeds stays.

Records keep their retention. No finding deletes, shortens, or weakens a GxP record, an audit trail, or a backup of a validated system. GxP buckets keep Object Lock and versioning, their CloudTrail data events and log groups keep the retention their procedures set, and snapshots in validated accounts stay out of the waste work. Research data carries retention obligations too, so the lifecycle findings move it to colder storage and never out of retention.

The honest part

What else went in, what did not,
and who decided.

A guarantee that counted only the changes owners agreed to would be easy to meet, so the reports show every call, with the owner who made it and the reason. The validated-system changes are in the section above; these are the rest. In all, thirteen approved changes wait and four were declined, one more was reversed after the readout (in the section above), and one purchase was made.

Bought: the commitment.

Copperwick already held a three-year Compute Savings Plan. Finance decided on March 19, and Copperwick’s finance team made the purchase in cw-cicd, a member of the sharing group limited to the in-scope accounts. Vantalect buys nothing.

  • C-1 · Rafael Quintero

    Compute Savings Plan, one year, No Upfront, $50 an hour, on the non-GPU floor

    $148,682 a year

    Sized on the compute floor that remains after every deferred change, inside the sharing group, so the existing three-year plan and this one both stay fully used. A three-year plan waits for the renewal: “I’m not locking three years a year before I renegotiate the agreement.”

    Decided. Thursday, March 19, by Rafael Quintero with Adaeze Whitfield.

Declined at the readout, outside validation: two changes.

An owner said no, with a reason, and the decision is on the record. Each can be reopened. The other two declined changes, $134,451 a year together, are in the validated-systems section.

  • C-2 · Mateo Varga and Rafael Quintero

    EC2 Instance Savings Plan for the four remaining p4d.24xlarge, one year, No Upfront

    $264,705 a year

    The training fleet moves to a newer accelerator within the year, and a family-locked plan would strand.

    Revisit. When the new accelerator is chosen.

  • B-2 · Priya Okonkwo

    Genomics Batch pinned to the Lustre file system’s Availability Zone (cross-AZ transfer down 80%)

    $36,962 a year

    “One zone means a third of the Spot pools. I’d rather pay the cross-AZ toll than eat interruptions.”

    Revisit. If Spot interruptions in the zone fall.

Approved, then deferred, outside validation: five changes, $843,187 a year.

Each is approved, owned, and dated. None was in place by April 2, so none counts toward the gate. All five wait on research work, not on change control: a campaign calendar, a benchmark, a disaster-recovery test, and a job’s second pass.

  • B-3 · Hana Lindgren

    Cryo-EM GPU workers to an AWS Batch GPU queue that scales to zero (10 g5.12xlarge billed about 35% of hours)

    $303,586 a year

    A workflow change for the cryo-EM team that cannot happen in the middle of a collection campaign. It waits for the next one.

    Target. April 6.

  • F-3 · Hana Lindgren

    Cryo-EM Lustre: a scratch file system per collection campaign instead of a standing persistent one

    $196,824 a year

    It is scheduled with B-3, for the same reason.

    Target. April 6.

  • G-1 · Hana Lindgren

    Molecular dynamics to c7g.16xlarge (Graviton) after the benchmark

    $65,875 a year

    Throughput per vCPU on Copperwick’s own systems is unproven, so the move waits for the benchmark.

    Target. April 20.

  • S3-1b · Tomasz Reyes

    The remaining raw run folders (0.3 PB) after the tar job’s second pass

    $71,003 a year

    The tar job’s second pass sets the pace: its capacity, not a decision.

    Target. April 20.

  • S3-5 · Tomasz Reyes

    Research replicas in us-west-2: raw data and results to Deep Archive, regenerable intermediates expired and no longer replicated (the GxP replicas, in the Standard-IA line, unchanged)

    $205,899 a year

    The change alters the research data’s recovery time in the disaster-recovery plan, so it waits for the disaster-recovery test. The GxP replicas are unchanged.

    Target. April 21.

In place, not yet measurable: one change.

Distinct from deferred: the change is made, and nothing can be measured yet.

  • S3-4 · Tomasz Reyes

    Analysis results to S3 Intelligent-Tiering (1.6 PB)

    $119,686 a year

    Objects move tiers only after 30 days without access, so nothing can be measured before week six. It counts nothing toward the gate and is reported on its own.

    First measurable. The seven days from May 11.

Cost avoidance

What the planned growth
could cost less.

Copperwick’s 2026 plan adds about $260,000 a month to the in-scope bill by March 2027: a long-read sequencing core in June, a second cryo-EM microscope in August, Feldspar’s Phase 2 biomarker work, and ML growth. The patterns that produced this engagement’s savings are the ones that would recur in that growth, in new Batch environments, instrument buckets, file systems, GPUs, and logs.

The nine guardrails built in week five are what keep them from recurring, so the range is what they are worth against the planned growth: 8% to 13% of it.

It is a model, not a measurement. Nothing in it has happened, none of it is on the bill, and none of it counts toward the gate or was used to clear it. There is no “before” on the Cost and Usage Report for a workload that does not exist yet.

Not counted toward the gate
$250,000 to $410,000 a year

At the planned run rate, $20,800 to $33,800 a month. A planning range on growth still to come: not measured, not counted toward the gate, and not a saving on the bill.

Where it comes from, as a share of the $260,000 a month of planned growth
  • Batch lands on SpotSpot-by-default Batch environments: new genomics and analysis work starts on the cheaper capacity, and On-Demand needs an exception tag.3% to 5%
  • New results start tieredThe data-class lifecycle standard, co-signed by quality for its GxP class. New results start in Intelligent-Tiering and intermediates expire (raw data moves only at 18 months, after March 2027). GxP data never moves by default.1% to 2%
  • No standing peak capacityA throughput and capacity review before any new Lustre file system, so a file system is sized to the measured peak.2% to 3%
  • GPUs bill when usedIdle-GPU alarms on every GPU instance, and notebook and workstation auto-stop as account defaults.1% to 2%
  • Storage, network, and logging defaultsThe VPC template with gateway endpoints, a service control policy against new gp2 volumes, and log retention in the account baseline.1%

Cost avoidance is a forecast of a bill that has not happened, so it sits apart from the gate on purpose. The gate counts savings on the bill, measured on Copperwick’s own Cost and Usage Report, and nothing else: $2,436,540 a year, with none of this in it.

The workspace

Nothing lived
in an inbox.

The engagement ran in a Pavilion workspace, created from the Optimization’s template with every week, session, deliverable, and obligation already in place, on Copperwick’s calendar and in its time zone. The sponsor, finance, quality, the platform lead, and the workload owners joined it, and Charles.

After each session the transcript came into the workspace, and an agent drafted the summary, the decisions taken, the action items, and a digest for the people who were not in the room, each claim citing the part of the transcript it came from. Charles reviewed every draft before Copperwick saw it. Every report was published there as an immutable, hashed version, and Adaeze Whitfield accepted each one against that version.

Copperwick’s demonstration workspace is still being written, so this page describes the workspace in words and counts nothing in it.

A glass-and-steel pavilion at blue hour on a still lake, one warm light glowing inside.

Read about Pavilion

What the workspace is built to hold for this engagement
  • The six weeks on one calendar, every session and deliverable in its place
  • Each report as a hashed version, and the sponsor’s acceptance of it
  • A register of the validated-system changes: each one’s class, change request, impact assessment, and QA decision
  • The decisions, each with who made it and the reason beside it
  • The waste register, the rightsizing plan, the savings roadmap, and the measurement against the baseline
  1. A freeze, on the calendar.

    When the clinical freeze held the statistical computing and clinical data systems until topline, each deferred change kept its condition, its owner, and a task dated April 27, so anyone reading the roadmap later finds the reason beside the line.

  2. A change request, with its evidence.

    A validated-system change is not a ticket. The workspace keeps its class, the board date it was taken to, the impact assessment, and QA’s decision together, so the record shows the route as well as the result.

  3. A purchase decision, with who made it.

    The Savings Plan was approved by Rafael Quintero and bought by Copperwick’s finance team. Vantalect holds no write access and buys nothing, and the record shows which side did what.

  4. A change of mind, on the record.

    Rosalind Tran’s reversal of the CloudTrail change is recorded as approved and then reversed, with her reason, so when the sponsor accepted the measurement, the reason for the $35,194 line was a click away.

  5. The handover.

    The engagement’s last tasks hand the roadmap to Copperwick: every remaining change with an owner and a date, and the first monthly cost review on Thursday, May 14. Then the workspace closed.

The deliverables

Every report, as delivered.

Nine PDFs and 237 pages. Start with the readout; the reading guide shows how the rest fit together. Then read the weeks in order and you have the engagement the way Copperwick’s sponsor did. Each one is tagged for screen readers, and each says on its cover that Copperwick is fictional.

Start with the readout (14 pages)

Written for the sponsor, and the one to read if you read nothing else: the baseline, the savings ranked, what change control and the two freezes allow, the decisions made at the readout, and the plan for the next four weeks.

  1. Week 2 of 6: Sponsor readout
    March 6, 2026
    First page of Analysis Sponsor Readout: sample engagement report, 14 pages, PDF

    Analysis Sponsor Readout

    copperwick-cost-3-readout.pdf

    PDF14 pages426 KB

    The baseline, the savings ranked, what change control and the freezes allow, the decisions made at the readout, and the next four weeks.

    Download PDF of Analysis Sponsor Readout

For the engineer you forward it to

The full analysis behind the readout: the waste register, the rightsizing plan, the commitment plan, and the ranked savings roadmap, with each change’s GxP class and the prescriptive change for it.

  1. Week 2 of 6: Find and rank
    March 5, 2026
    First page of Cost Analysis and Savings Roadmap: sample engagement report, 60 pages, PDF

    Cost Analysis and Savings Roadmap

    copperwick-cost-2-analysis.pdf

    PDF60 pages1.4 MB

    Thirty-six findings priced as 41 changes from the AWS price list, each classed by its GxP change path, ranked, and given a prescriptive change.

    Download PDF of Cost Analysis and Savings Roadmap

The rest, week by week

The reading guide first, then what each week delivered, in order.

  1. Reading guide to the eight reports
    April 2, 2026
    First page of Sample Engagement Reports: reading guide to the sample reports, 9 pages, PDF

    Sample Engagement Reports

    copperwick-0-guide.pdf

    PDF9 pages308 KB

    Who Copperwick Therapeutics is, what each of the eight sample cost reports delivers, what the engagement found and fixed in a research estate with GxP-validated systems, and what is real and what is simulated.

    Download PDF of Sample Engagement Reports
  2. Week 1 of 6: Baseline and inventory
    February 27, 2026
    First page of Spend Baseline and Inventory: sample engagement report, 29 pages, PDF

    Spend Baseline and Inventory

    copperwick-cost-1-baseline.pdf

    PDF29 pages900 KB

    Twelve months of Copperwick’s in-scope AWS spend, the February run rate by service, account family, and owner, the GxP ground rules, the freeze calendar, and the private pricing agreement.

    Download PDF of Spend Baseline and Inventory
  3. Week 3 of 6: Quick wins
    March 13, 2026
    First page of Quick Wins Applied: sample engagement report, 24 pages, PDF

    Quick Wins Applied

    copperwick-cost-4-quick-wins.pdf

    PDF24 pages667 KB

    Waste removed, idle GPUs stopped, schedules, gp3, gateway endpoints, logging, and the data lake, change by change, and the one change the CISO reversed.

    Download PDF of Quick Wins Applied
  4. Week 4 of 6: Rightsizing and commitments
    March 20, 2026
    First page of Rightsizing and Commitments: sample engagement report, 23 pages, PDF

    Rightsizing and Commitments

    copperwick-cost-5-rightsizing-commitments.pdf

    PDF23 pages737 KB

    Spot for genomics, the Lustre cutover, the GxP val schedule, and the commitment decision finance approved, sized around the private pricing agreement.

    Download PDF of Rightsizing and Commitments
  5. Week 5 of 6: Architecture and guardrails
    March 27, 2026
    First page of Architecture Changes and Guardrails: sample engagement report, 28 pages, PDF

    Architecture Changes and Guardrails

    copperwick-cost-6-architecture-guardrails.pdf

    PDF28 pages698 KB

    Nine guardrails, the data-class lifecycle standard, the deferred GxP change requests, and the cost-avoidance model for planned growth.

    Download PDF of Architecture Changes and Guardrails
  6. Week 6 of 6: Measure
    April 1, 2026
    First page of Week-Six Savings Measurement: sample engagement report, 22 pages, PDF

    Week-Six Savings Measurement

    copperwick-cost-7-measurement.pdf

    PDF22 pages563 KB

    Every change measured on Copperwick’s Cost and Usage Report, net of the private pricing discount, annualized, and the guarantee’s gate.

    Download PDF of Week-Six Savings Measurement
  7. Week 6 of 6: Hand over
    April 2, 2026
    First page of Handover Playbook and Monthly Cost Review: sample engagement report, 28 pages, PDF

    Handover Playbook and Monthly Cost Review

    copperwick-cost-8-handover.pdf

    PDF28 pages684 KB

    The remaining roadmap with owners and dates, the GxP change-request calendar, the commitment plan for the 2027 renewal, the monthly cost review, and the guardrail register.

    Download PDF of Handover Playbook and Monthly Cost Review

Let's define the result.

Tell us roughly what the bill is, which of your systems are validated, and what prompted the question. You will hear back from Charles within one business day, and the first call is fifteen minutes.

AWS, Amazon Web Services, AWS Graviton, and the AWS service names are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. Vantalect is not affiliated with or endorsed by Amazon. Copperwick Therapeutics, Inc. and every person named on this page are fictional.