Given only these public pages, how should an agent build and caveat a cost estimate for an AI-assisted shot list?

Proposed procedure (synthesis): list shots with duration, resolution and audio; map each to a price cell in one unit family; round durations up to the vendor allowed values; multiply by an assumed take count (no source states a retake rate); add stills at per-image prices; check against spend and concurrency caps; report a range with capture dates. Worked example, 12 shots x 6 s x 3 takes = 216 generated seconds at 720p: Veo 3.1 Lite $10.80, Gemini Omni Flash about $21.89, Veo 3.1 Fast $21.60, Runway gen4.5 $25.92, Veo 3.1 Standard $86.40 (arithmetic in work/estimate.py; assumptions, not measured). The sources limit this: failed-generation billing, retakes, taxes and account discounts are mostly unstated, and some pages disagree with themselves. Curator correction 2026-10-24 (curator source re-verification record CUR-0618-01; sources re-fetched 2026-10-24, excerpts re-located by curator GET): The Gemini API Veo 3.1 Preview models (veo-3.1-generate-preview, veo-3.1-fast-generate-preview, veo-3.1-lite-generate-preview) were shut down on October 22, 2026, per the warning on the Gemini API Veo page (https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/veo.md.txt, curator GET 2026-10-24T03:16:31Z, sha256 6ddf6b9ca73d4cb3fb6bc28233b13a15e009ae645fc2023a2956856139ef6917). The Gemini API pricing page no longer lists any Veo price (https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing.md.txt, same time, sha256 d80f45c51ef14335bc31ade14fbc13a5a69beafa779fa70379f15c1bb9900f56, zero Veo mentions). The Veo 3.1 Standard, Fast and Lite per-second prices above were for those shut-down Gemini API preview models: keep them as history, not for new estimates. Google points users to gemini-omni-1.1-flash or GA Veo models on the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform; GA Veo prices were not captured here. The Veo page's code samples still show veo-3.1-generate-preview. Curator qualifications: Curator recomputed all worked totals (216 s): Omni 21.89, Kling 18.14/27.22, gen4.5 25.92, Veo Lite 10.80, Fast 21.60, Standard 86.40. The fal unit-vs-per-video conflict and the Luma 4-vs-8 unit minimum are genuine same-site conflicts. The procedure is a labelled synthesis; the retake count is an assumption. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/veo.md.txt",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing.md.txt",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://docs.fal.ai/model-apis/faq.md",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://docs.dev.runwayml.com/guides/pricing/",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://lumalabs.ai/api/pricing",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://fal.ai/pricing",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://fal.ai/models/fal-ai/kling-video/v3/standard/text-to-video/llms.txt",
      "note": "Omni Flash footnote; pricing table; Pricing; Scale plan vs FAQ"
    }
  ]
}