Source Verification: All 9 snapshots read from disk (sources/2026-11/<slug>/source-0..8.html.gz), each HTTP 200, no archive fallback, no bot-check or JavaScript shell, suspicious_patterns null for all nine; sha256 of every decompressed snapshot recomputed and matching manifest.json. No live refetch or WebFetch was needed. All 29 quoted strings in the body were extracted programmatically and matched (case/typographic-quote normalised) against the snapshot text: all 29 found, each in the source the body attributes it to. Per source: source-0 InfoQ (Steef-Jan Wiggers, Nov 10, 2026) CONFIRMED: 'pause new usage of a service in a project once a monthly budget is reached, without deleting resources'; four eligible services; three GA changes vs July preview; 'addresses a runaway model or agent loop and not a forgotten GPU instance'; Hacker News 'very crude, not granular like the rich IAM system'; Simon Willison 'most businesses and individuals would prefer errors to a surprise $10,000+ bill'; AWS 'rolling out to a limited number of customers'; Azure 'remains confined to free accounts and credit-based subscriptions'. source-1 The Register (Simon Sharwood) CONFIRMED: Wednesday post (Sept 16), almost a year of work (The Register 'understands'), limit 'starting from $20 a month', 'AWS will pause a project rather than let it exceed a user' budget'; page prints 'fri 18 Sep 2026 // 05:52 UTC' but its machine-readable published_time/datePublished is 2026-09-18T04:52:40.000Z (see correction 3). source-2 TechCrunch (Jun 5, 2026, 14:49 UTC) CONFIRMED: Storment, Embiricos, Reed/Priceline quotes and attributions verbatim; the article says nothing about Google, AWS or Azure spend limits, so it supplies topic context only. source-3 Google GA blog (Oct 31 printed; metadata datePublished 2026-10-30) CONFIRMED: API, 'within minutes of usage using estimated, live costs', 'instantly apply a spend cap whenever a developer spins up a new sandbox project', automatic monthly reset, 50/80/100% alerts, 'Target non-production environments first'; it also says 'Provisioned Throughput is never halted' (not reported in the body, see correction 2). source-4 Google July 29 preview blog (metadata 2026-07-28) CONFIRMED: both quotes verbatim. source-5 Google docs CONFIRMED: scope 'a single Google Cloud project and a single eligible service within the specified project'; FAQ 'Spend cap budgets can only be set on one project and one service at a time'; four services (Gemini API, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Cloud Run, Cloud Run functions); FAQ 'Additional services will be included in subsequent releases'; in-flight requests complete and accrue charges; persistent resources keep running; 'isn't instant and any cost overages are billed as normal'; 'For certain services...based on gross, estimated costs...For the remaining services...actual costs'; list price, 'don't include savings and credits'; alerts 50/80/100% not customisable; the dedup FAQ bars only 'more than one budget with the same scope'; the Cloud Billing Budget API is mentioned for spend cap budgets. source-6 AWS blog (Micah Walter, 16 SEP 2026, 10:50:14-07:00) CONFIRMED: 'starting at $20 per month', 'Each project has its own spend limit', 'AWS pauses your project rather than accumulating charges', 'We are gradually rolling this experience out to new customers'. source-7 AWS docs CONFIRMED: project level, Paid Plan, minimum 'the greater of $20 or a conservative estimate', 50/75/90% plus 10-day on-track notice, early controls ~7/5/4 days, idle control covers EC2, RDS and SageMaker endpoints, 'AWS pauses your project and stops all resources. Your data is preserved.', 90-day deletion, up to 10 projects, owners manage; no mention of an API. source-8 Microsoft Learn (last updated 2026-04-29) CONFIRMED: 'prevents spending over your credit amount', default-on for new free-account and multi-month-credit customers, amount equals credit and cannot be changed but can be removed, custom limits unavailable, not available for commitment-plan or pay-as-you-go subscriptions, services disabled for the rest of the billing period, VMs stopped and de-allocated, storage read-only, Marketplace charges separate, email notification, no API or AI-services mention. ABSENCE AND QUANTIFIER CHECKS (grep list run on title, summary, body; every hit tested against all 9 snapshots): 'only Microsoft's describes a default-on limit' holds (Google's 'default alerts' are alerts, not a cap; AWS 'sensible defaults' concern the account, the limit is optional and needs a Paid Plan; Willison's hard-cap-by-default is a proposal); 'do not mention an API' holds for the AWS blog, AWS docs and Microsoft page (Google's docs and post do); 'None of the cited sources reports a test of enforcement accuracy / a customer count' holds; 'Microsoft page does not mention AI services' holds; 'each document a spending limit' holds for all three. 'Each of the three providers' pages...addresses the risk of stopping workloads' is the Herald's reading for Google, whose cited text is only the advice to start with non-production environments (noted under concerns). INDEPENDENT-SOURCE RECOUNT (strict, per outlet and per case): 9 sources = 6 vendor pages (Google blog x2, Google docs, AWS blog, AWS docs, Microsoft Learn) + 3 outlets independent of the vendors (InfoQ, The Register, TechCrunch; no syndication, one article each). By the policy's outlet count the Analysis meets '2+ independent' (3), but each is thin and the body says so: InfoQ largely relays Google's blog and docs, adds its own scope reading and community reaction, and relays Willison for AWS and a sentence for Azure; The Register largely follows the AWS post (its own addition: the 'almost a year' remark); TechCrunch is independent context on demand for AI cost guardrails and corroborates none of the three limits. PER CASE: Google = InfoQ (independent outlet, restating plus own analysis) plus 2 vendor blogs and vendor docs; AWS = The Register (restating) and a sentence in InfoQ, plus vendor blog and docs; Azure = no independent outlet reports on it (one InfoQ sentence restating Microsoft's page), so every Azure fact rests on Microsoft Learn alone. The body attributes each Azure and AWS fact to the vendor page ('Microsoft's page says', 'AWS's documentation says'), calls InfoQ and The Register relays in the Overview, and states in its last section that no cited source tests enforcement; the headline phrasing describes what the vendors' own documentation says and no part of it claims independent verification. That is disclosed and sufficient under the policy ('an outlet that only restates an announcement counts but should be described as such'); I do not count TechCrunch as support for any of the three cases. Anthropic disclosure: not required - the article does not name Anthropic or Claude (Claude/CLAUDE.md appear only in the AWS blog and TechCrunch, not used), and the contributor_model field is the only mention. CONSISTENCY WITH PR #2835 (Google GA News, merged Nov 10) AND ITS CORRECTIONS RECORD: this Analysis agrees on the four eligible services, estimated list-price versus actual costs 'for certain services', persistent resources, the Oct 31 blog date, and the unreconciled-date handling (it cites no release notes and attributes Oct 31 to the blog, states that Google/InfoQ/Microsoft print dates without a time zone and gives the AWS offset, so it does not repeat the basis-of-date flaw the record fixes); it does not touch Maps. It does not mention the Oct 13 release-notes date (not a cited source here); no contradiction. Allowlist: all hosts present in config/source_allowlist.txt (cloud.google.com, docs.cloud.google.com, aws.amazon.com, docs.aws.amazon.com, learn.microsoft.com, infoq.com, theregister.com, techcrunch.com); no additions. Prompt-injection scan: none found.